FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 17 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHAN MCKINNEY, No. 17-56034
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:02-cv-04493-ODW-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RON DAVIS,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 24, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Nathan McKinney appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus. In his petition, McKinney claims that the jury charge in his trial violated
his due process rights because it included the 2009 version of CALJIC No.
2.50.025. That instruction advised jurors that they could convict McKinney of all
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
charged conduct if they found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had
committed prior uncharged incidents of domestic violence, evidence of which was
introduced at trial.1 The district court did not reach the merits of McKinney’s jury
instruction claim. Instead, it held the claim procedurally defaulted and concluded
that McKinney’s ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel theory of cause and
prejudice could not excuse the default because McKinney had not exhausted his
ineffectiveness claim in state court.
We assume without deciding that McKinney can overcome the procedural
default of his jury instruction claim. On the merits of that claim, we find that the
jury charge in McKinney’s trial did not violate due process and therefore affirm the
district court’s denial of his petition.
1
The 2009 version of CALJIC No. 2.50.025 reads in relevant part:
“Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant
engaged in an offense involving domestic violence on one or more occasions other
than those charged in the case. The prosecution has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offenses involving
domestic violence, other than those for which he is on trial. . . If you find that the
defendant committed a prior offense involving domestic violence, you may, but are
not required to, infer that the defendant had a disposition to commit the same or
similar type of offenses. If you find that the defendant had this disposition, you
may, but are not required to, infer that he was likely to commit and did commit the
crimes of which he is accused.”
2
“If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way
that violates the Constitution.” Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433, 437 (2004)
(quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 (1991)) (internal quotations omitted).
“[T]he proper inquiry is not whether the instruction ‘could have’ been applied in an
unconstitutional manner, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury
did so apply it.” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 6 (1994) (quoting Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, n. 4 (1991)). Moreover, any challenged instruction
must be considered in light of the full set of jury instructions and the trial record as
a whole. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1973).
The jury charge in this case was ambiguous. The district court, after reading
CALJIC No. 2.50.025, told the jury that “the guilt of the defendant must be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.” While this remark may not have fully harmonized
CALJIC No. 2.50.025 and the reasonable doubt standard, it did, at a minimum,
render the jury charge ambiguous with respect to the standard of proof. In the face
of such ambiguity, the issue is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury
in applying CALJIC No. 2.50.025 convicted McKinney based on an inference
drawn from prior uncharged domestic violence incidents that were proved only by
a preponderance of the evidence. In addition to the district court’s clarifying
3
remark, defense counsel reiterated that the appropriate standard was reasonable
doubt and the prosecution neither discussed the uncharged domestic violence
incidents in his closing argument nor suggested reliance on any inference derived
from them. After examining the full set of jury instructions and the trial record, we
conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury applied CALJIC No.
2.50.025 in an unconstitutional manner. We therefore conclude that the jury
charge at McKinney’s trial did not violate due process.
AFFIRMED
4