905 F2d 1541 Steele v. Maass

905 F.2d 1541

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

James Lee STEELE, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Manfred MAASS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 89-35776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 1990.*
Decided June 22, 1990.

Before SCHROEDER, NORRIS, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.


Advertisement
view counter
1

MEMORANDUM**

2

James Lee Steele appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982). We review de novo and affirm.

3

We reject Steele's argument that insufficient evidence existed to convict him of attempted rape and other crimes. The testimony of the victim was sufficient for a rational jury to find Steele guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

4

Furthermore, the trial court's admission of testimony which referred to certain physical objects that the prosecution did not introduce into evidence was proper and did not violate Steele's constitutional rights. The introduction of physical objects into evidence is not a prerequisite to the introduction of testimony which refers to those objects. See generally C. McCormick, Evidence Sec. 212 (3d Ed.1984).

5

Steele's argument that he was improperly and unconstitutionally forced to introduce his victim's robe and nightgown into evidence because the victim mentioned those items in her testimony is frivolous.

6

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and 9th Cir.R. 34-4


Advertisement
view counter
**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3