to object at trial, to the portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument that Earp now claims misstated the burden of proof. Typically, such a violation of California’s simultaneous objection rule circumscribes habeas relief to those situations where the defendant demonstrates “cause and actual prejudice.” Hall v. Whitley, 935 F.2d 164, 165 n. 1 (9th Cir.1991) (citing Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977)). However, we consider Earp’s claim because the state court did not “clearly and expressly rely” on California’s simultaneous objection rule in denying Earp’s claim, but instead decided the constitutional claim on its merits. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Compare Earp, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d at 36 (<HOLDING>), with id. 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d at 39
recognizing earps violation of the simultaneous objection rule recognizing general rule recognizing this rule holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless recognizing rule