Smith v. Hill, No. 11-35338 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of robbery and assault. At issue was whether petitioner procedurally defaulted a federal habeas claim. In Harris v. Reed, the Supreme Court instructed that a procedural default did not bar consideration of a federal claim unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar. Applying Harris and its Ninth Circuit progeny, the court held that petitioner did not default his claim and vacated the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition. Under Chambers v. McDaniel, the cursory rejection of petitioner's appeal made it quite plausible that the Oregon Court of Appeals reached the merits of petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, holding that petitioner’s claim was not procedurally defaulted. Petitioner challenged certain trial testimony on hearsay grounds, but did not raise a Confrontation Clause objection until his direct appeal. The state appellate court summarily affirmed the conviction, and the supreme court affirmed. The panel held that, under Chambers v. McDaniel, 549 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2008), it was plausible to construe the state appellate court’s ambiguous response as acting on the merits of petitioner’s Confrontation Clause claim. Chief Judge Kozinski dissented. He would affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief on the ground that petitioner’s Confrontation Clause claim is procedurally defaulted and petitioner has failed to show cause and prejudice to excuse the default.
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.