Darryl Wayne FARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stuart RYAN, Acting Warden, Respondent-Appellee, 396 F. App'x 358

MEMORANDUM Appellant Darryl Wayne Farris (Farris) challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Far-ris contends that the exclusion of evidence of prostitution pursuant to California’s Rape Shield Law violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. Because Farris’s habeas petition was filed after 1996, his claim is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See Howard v. Clark, 608 F.3d 563, 567 (9th Cir.2010).

Under the AEDPA, Farris’s petition can only be granted if the state court’s “adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Id. (citations and alteration omitted). The California Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court, pursuant to California’s Rape Shield Law, properly excluded a victim’s prior conviction for prostitution and her “price list”. This conclusion was not contrary to Michigan v.

Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 152-53, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991), in which the Supreme Court held that a defendant does not have an unconditional constitutional right to introduce evidence of a prior sexual relationship with the victim, and the legitimate interests served by state rape shield statutes could justify excluding such evidence. Consistent with Lucas, the trial court balanced the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial nature. See id. at 153, 111 S.Ct. 1743 (remanding for consideration of whether the defendant’s right to confrontation was violated “on the facts”).

Indeed, Farris was allowed to ask all three victims whether they were engaged in prostitution on the nights in question. He also identified one location as a “stroll area” for prostitutes. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.