Kinney Wayne Compton v. KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KINNEY WAYNE COMPTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-56946
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02811-GW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 6, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY Circuit Judges.
Kinney Wayne Compton appeals from the district court’s judgment denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253. We review de novo, Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir.
2011), and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Compton contends that the trial court’s admission into evidence of the
deceased victim’s out-of-court statements to police violated Compton’s Sixth
Amendment right to confrontation. As to the crime scene and emergency room
statements, the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme
Court law in denying Compton’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), left ambiguous the scope and meaning of the
terms “testimonial” and “interrogation,” and there were material differences
between the circumstances in Crawford and those presented here. As to the
statements made by Compton five days after the shooting, admission of those
statements was harmless. See Brecht v. Abramson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --