Doe v. Busby, No. 08-55165 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseRespondent appealed the district court's order granting petitioner a conditional writ of habeas corpus. At issue was whether the petition was timely; even assuming the petition was deemed timely, whether there was error in the state court's jury instructions; and whether the district court erred by not granting habeas relief on the alternative ground that retroactive application of California Evidence Code 1109 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court agreed with the district court that petitioner did not relent in his efforts and that he was entitled to equitable tolling for his diligence in the face of his counsel's deceit and therefore addressed the merits of the petition. The court held that the instructions directed the jury to consider evidence of petitioner's prior unadjudicated acts of domestic violence, most of which were wholly unrelated to the crimes with which he was charged, to convict him, among other things, of first-degree murder. This was error under Sullivan v. Louisiana and Gibson v. Ortiz and the court affirmed the district court's issuance of a conditional writ. The court also held that the use of certain evidence of domestic violence at Doe's trial did not contravene the Ex Post Facto Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order granting a conditional writ of habeas corpus.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.