FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 06 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS P. MORRIS, No. 11-56633
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:09-cv-00664-VAP-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TIM V. VIRGA, Warden, Soledad State
Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 4, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Thomas P. Morris seeks habeas relief from his state conviction for felony-
murder on the ground that the state trial court violated his constitutional right to
present a complete and coherent defense by excluding evidence that for years
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Morris had told doctors and others that he was being pursued by devil worshipers.
Because Morris’s federal habeas petition was filed after the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, AEDPA’s
more stringent standards govern. See Cunningham v. Wong, 704 F.3d 1143, 1153
(9th Cir. 2013). Habeas relief is proper only if Morris shows that the state court’s
decision on the merits “(1) 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; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based
on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in
the State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Lockyer v. Andrade,
538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003).
In United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998), the Supreme Court
reiterated that a “defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited,
but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions.” A defendant’s interest in
presenting such evidence may be limited to accommodate other legitimate interests
in the criminal proceeding. Id. The question is whether the exclusion of evidence
presented by a defendant “significantly undermined fundamental elements of the
defendant’s defense.” Id. at 315.
2
Morris has failed to make such a showing. Although the trial court excluded
testimony of Morris’s prior statements to doctors and others concerning his
delusions, substantial evidence of his mental illness and delusions was presented to
the jury. While the trial judge limited the number of witnesses that Morris could
call, Morris has not demonstrated that the excluded witnesses’ testimony was
critical to his case and not cumulative. Morris has not shown that the trial court’s
evidentiary rulings “significantly undermined fundamental elements of [his]
defense.”
AFFIRMED.
3