(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2008 1 

Syllabus 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

WADDINGTON, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON

CORRECTIONS CENTER v. SARAUSAD 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07–772. Argued October 15, 2008—Decided January 21, 2009 

Respondent Sarausad drove the car in a driveby shooting at a high

school, which was the culmination of a gang dispute. En route to 

school, Ronquillo, the front seat passenger, covered his lower face and 

readied a handgun. Sarausad abruptly slowed down upon reaching

the school, Ronquillo fired at a group of students, killing one and 

wounding another, and Sarausad then sped away. He, Ronquillo, 

and Reyes, another passenger, were tried on murder and related

charges. Sarausad and Reyes, who were tried as accomplices, argued 

that they were not accomplices to murder because they had not

known Ronquillo’s plan and had expected at most another fistfight. 

In her closing argument, the prosecutor stressed Sarausad’s knowledge of a shooting, noting how he drove at the scene, that he knew 

that fighting alone would not regain respect for his gang, and that he 

was “in for a dime, in for a dollar.” The jury received two instructions 

that directly quoted Washington’s accomplice-liability law. When it 

failed to reach a verdict as to Reyes, the judge declared a mistrial as

to him. The jury then convicted Ronquillo on all counts and convicted 

Sarausad of second-degree murder and related crimes. In affirming 

Sarausad’s conviction, the State Court of Appeals, among other

things, referred to an “in for a dime, in for a dollar” accompliceliability theory. The State Supreme Court denied review, but in its 

subsequent Roberts case, it clarified that “in for a dime, in for a dollar” was not the best descriptor of accomplice liability because an accomplice must have knowledge of the crime that occurred. The court 

also explicitly reaffirmed its precedent that the type of jury instructions used at Sarausad’s trial comport with Washington law. 

Sarausad sought state postconviction relief, arguing that the prose-
2 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Syllabus 

cutor’s improper “in for a dime, in for a dollar” argument may have 

led the jury to convict him as an accomplice to murder based solely on

a finding that he had anticipated that an assault would occur. The 

state appeals court reexamined the trial record in light of Roberts, 

but found no error requiring correction. The State Supreme Court 

denied Sarausad’s petition, holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury and that no prejudicial error resulted from the 

prosecutor’s potentially improper hypothetical. Sarausad then 

sought review under 28 U. S. C. §2254, which, inter alia, permits a

federal court to grant habeas relief on a claim “adjudicated on the

merits” in state court only if the decision “was contrary to, or involved 

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by” this Court, §2254(d)(1). The District Court granted

the petition, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding it unreasonable 

for the state court to affirm Sarausad’s conviction because the jury

instruction on accomplice liability was ambiguous and there was a 

reasonable likelihood that the jury misinterpreted the instruction in 

a way that relieved the State of its burden of proving Sarausad’s

knowledge of a shooting beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Held: Because the state-court decision did not result in an “unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law,” §2254(d)(1),

the Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to Sarausad. 

Pp. 10–17. 

(a) When a state court’s application of governing federal law is

challenged, the decision “ ‘must be shown to be not only erroneous, 

but objectively unreasonable.’ ” Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U. S. 433, 

436 (per curiam). A defendant challenging the constitutionality of a

jury instruction that quotes a state statute must show both that the

instruction was ambiguous and that there was “ ‘a reasonable likelihood’ ” that the jury applied the instruction in a way that relieved the 

State of its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 72. The instruction “must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole 

and the trial record,” ibid., and the pertinent question is whether the

“instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting

conviction violates due process,’ ” ibid. Pp. 10–11. 

(b) Because the Washington courts’ conclusion that the jury instruction was unambiguous was not objectively unreasonable, the 

Ninth Circuit should have ended its §2254(d)(1) inquiry there. The 

instruction parroted the state statute’s language, requiring the jury

to find Sarausad guilty as an accomplice “in the commission of the 

[murder]” if he acted “with knowledge that [his conduct would] promote or facilitate the commission of the [murder],” Wash. Rev. Code

§§9A.08.020(2)(c), (3)(a). The instruction cannot be assigned any 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 3 

Syllabus 

meaning different from the one given to it by the Washington courts. 

Pp. 11–12. 

(c) Even if the instruction were ambiguous, the Ninth Circuit still

erred in finding it so ambiguous as to cause a federal constitutional 

violation requiring reversal under AEDPA. The Washington courts 

reasonably applied this Court’s precedent when they found no “reasonable likelihood” that the prosecutor’s closing argument caused the

jury to apply the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its 

burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt. The prosecutor consistently argued that Sarausad was guilty

as an accomplice because he acted with knowledge that he was facilitating a driveby shooting. She never argued that the admission by

Sarausad and Reyes that they anticipated a fight was a concession of 

accomplice liability for murder. Sarausad’s attorney also homed in

on the key question, stressing a lack of evidence showing that 

Sarausad knew that his assistance would promote or facilitate a

premeditated murder. Every state and federal appellate court that

reviewed the verdict found the evidence supporting Sarausad’s 

knowledge of a shooting legally sufficient to convict him under Washington law. Given the strength of that evidence, and the jury’s failure to convict Reyes—who had also been charged as an accomplice to

murder and admitted knowledge of a possible fight—it was not objectively unreasonable for the Washington courts to conclude that the

jury convicted Sarausad because it believed that he, unlike Reyes,

had knowledge of more than just a fistfight. The Ninth Circuit’s contrary reasoning is unconvincing. Pp. 13–17. 

479 F. 3d 671, reversed and remanded. 

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 

C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., 

filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 07–772 

DOUG WADDINGTON, SUPERINTENDENT, 

WASHINGTON CORRECTIONS CENTER, 

PETITIONER v. CESAR SARAUSAD 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[January 21, 2009] 

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 

This case arose from a fatal driveby shooting into a

group of students standing in front of a Seattle high 

school. Brian Ronquillo was ultimately identified as the 

gunman; at the time of the shooting, he was a passenger 

in a car driven by respondent Cesar Sarausad II. A jury

convicted Sarausad as an accomplice to second-degree 

murder, attempted murder, and assault; he was sentenced

to just over 27 years of imprisonment. The Washington

courts affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct 

review, and his state-court motions for postconviction

relief were denied. 

Respondent, then, filed a federal petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. The District Court granted the writ. On 

appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed 

with the District Court that the state-court decision was 

an objectively “unreasonable application of . . . clearly 

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 

Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1). The 

Court of Appeals found it unreasonable for the state court 
2 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

to reject Sarausad’s argument that certain jury instructions used at his trial were ambiguous and were likely 

misinterpreted by the jury to relieve the State of its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Sarausad v. Porter, 479 F. 3d 671 (2007). 

We disagree. Because the Washington courts reasonably

applied our precedent to the facts of this case, we reverse 

the judgment below. 

I 

A 

The driveby shooting was the culmination of a gang 

dispute between the 23d Street Diablos, of which Cesar

Sarausad was a member, and the Bad Side Posse, which 

was headquartered at Ballard High School in Seattle,

Washington. A member of the Diablos, Jerome Reyes, had 

been chased from Ballard by members of the Bad Side

Posse, so the Diablos decided to go “to Ballard High School

to show that the Diablos were not afraid” of the rival gang. 

App. to Pet. for Cert. 235a. The Diablos started a fight

with the Bad Side Posse, but left quickly after someone 

indicated that police were nearby. They went to a gang 

member’s house, still angry because the Bad Side Posse 

had “called [them] weak.” Tr. 2660–2661. Brian Ronquillo retrieved a handgun, and the gang decided to return 

to Ballard and “get [their] respect back.” Id., at 2699. 

Sarausad drove, with Ronquillo in the front passenger 

seat and Reyes and two other Diablos in the back seat. En 

route, someone in the car mentioned “‘capping’” the Bad 

Side Posse, and Ronquillo tied a bandana over the lower 

part of his face and readied the handgun. Sarausad v. 

State, 109 Wash. App. 824, 844, 39 P. 3d 308, 319 (2001). 

Shortly before reaching the high school, a second car of 

Diablos pulled up next to Sarausad’s car and the drivers of 

the two cars talked briefly. Sarausad asked the other 

driver, “‘Are you ready?’” id., at 844–845, 39 P. 3d, at 319, 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

and then sped the rest of the way to the high school. Once 

in front of the school, Sarausad abruptly slowed to about 

five miles per hour while Ronquillo fired 6 to 10 shots at a

group of students standing in front of it. Id., at 831, 39 

P. 3d, at 312. Sarausad “saw everyone go down,” Tr. 2870,

and then sped away, 109 Wash. App., at 832, 39 P. 3d, at 

313. The gunfire killed one student; another student was

wounded when a bullet fragment struck his leg. Id., at 

831–832, 39 P. 3d, at 312–313. 

B 

Sarausad, Ronquillo, and Reyes were tried for the firstdegree murder of Melissa Fernandes, the attempted firstdegree murders of Ryan Lam and Tam Nguyen, and the

second-degree assault of Brent Mason. Sarausad and 

Reyes, who were tried as accomplices, argued at trial that 

they could not have been accomplices to murder because 

they “had no idea whatsoever that Ronquillo had armed 

himself for the return trip.” Id., at 832, 39 P. 3d, at 313. 

They claimed that they expected, at most, another fistfight 

with the Bad Side Posse and were “totally and utterly

dismayed when Ronquillo started shooting.” Ibid. 

Sarausad’s counsel, in particular, argued that there was

no evidence that Sarausad expected anything more than 

that the two gangs “would exchange insults, and maybe, 

maybe get into a fight.” Tr. 1151. Sarausad testified that 

he considered only the “possibility of a fight,” id., at 2799, 

but never the possibility of a shooting, 109 Wash. App.,

at 832, 39 P. 3d, at 313. During closing arguments, 

Sarausad’s attorney again argued that the evidence

showed only that Sarausad was “willing to fight them the 

way they fought them the first time. And that is by pushing and shoving and more tough talk.” App. 81. That was 

not sufficient, the attorney argued, to find that “Cesar 

[Sarausad] had knowledge that his assistance would 

promote or facilitate the crime of premeditated murder.” 
4 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

Id., at 83. Sarausad’s attorney also explained to the jury 

that knowledge of just any crime, such as knowledge that 

criminal assistance would be rendered after the shooting,

would be insufficient to hold Sarausad responsible as an

accomplice to murder because “[a]ccomplice liability requires that one assists with knowledge, that their actions 

will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime.” 

Id., at 100 (emphasis added). 

In response, the prosecutor focused much of her closing

argument on the evidence of Sarausad’s knowledge of a 

shooting. He had “slowed down before the shots were 

fired, stayed slowed down until the shots were over and 

immediately sped up.” Id., at 39. “There was no hesitation, there was no stopping the car. There was no attempt 

for Mr. Sarausad to swerve his car out of the way so that

innocent people wouldn’t get shot.” Id., at 40. She also 

argued that Sarausad knew when he drove back to the 

school that his gang’s “fists didn’t work, the pushing didn’t 

work, the flashing of the signs, the violent altercation

didn’t work” because the Bad Side Posse still “laughed at 

them, they called them weak, they called them nothing.” 

Id., at 44. So, “[w]hen they rode down to Ballard High

School that last time, . . . [t]hey knew they were there to 

commit a crime, to disrespect the gang, to fight, to shoot, 

to get that respect back. A fist didn’t work, pushing didn’t 

work. Shouting insults at them didn’t work. Shooting was

going to work. In for a dime, you’re in for a dollar.” Id., at 

123–124. 

At the close of trial, the jury received two instructions 

that directly quoted Washington’s accomplice-liability 

statute.1 Instruction number 45 provided: 

—————— 

1Washington’s accomplice-liability statute provides, in pertinent 

part:

“A person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the conduct of 

another person for which he is legally accountable. A person is legally 

accountable for the conduct of another person when: 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

“You are instructed that a person is guilty of a 

crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable. A person is

legally accountable for the conduct of another person

when he is an accomplice of such other person in the

commission of the crime.” Id., at 16 (emphasis added). 

Instruction number 46 provided, in relevant part: 

“A person is an accomplice in the commission of a

crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either: 

“(1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime or

“(2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime.” Id., at 17 (emphasis

added). 

During seven days of deliberations, the jury asked five

questions, three of which related to the intent requirement 

for accomplice liability. One questioned the accompliceliability standard as it related to the first-degree murder

instructions; one questioned the standard as it related to

the second-degree murder instructions; and one stated

that the jury was “having difficulty agreeing on the legal 

definition and concept of ‘accomplice’” and whether a

person’s “willing participat[ion] in a group activity” makes 

—————— 

. . . . . 

“He is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the

crime. 

“A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a

crime if . . . [w]ith knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the

commission of the crime, he 

“(i) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests such other person to

commit it; or 

“(ii) aids or agrees to aid such other person in planning or committing it.” Wash. Rev. Code §§9A.08.020(1)–(3) (2008) (internal numbering omitted). 
6 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

“that person an accomplice to any crime committed by

anyone in the group.” Id., at 129. In response to each

question, the judge instructed the jury to reread the accomplice-liability instructions and to consider the instructions as a whole. 

The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Reyes, and 

the judge declared a mistrial as to him. The jury then

returned guilty verdicts on all counts for Ronquillo and

convicted Sarausad of the lesser included crimes of seconddegree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and

second-degree assault. 

C 

On appeal, Sarausad argued that because the State did 

not prove that he had intent to kill, he could not be convicted as an accomplice to second-degree murder under

Washington law. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions, explaining that under Washington

law, an accomplice must have “general knowledge” that 

the crime will occur, but need not have the specific intent

required for that crime’s commission. App. to Pet. for

Cert. 259a. The court referred to accomplice liability as “a

theory of criminal liability that in Washington has been

reduced to the maxim, ‘in for a dime, in for a dollar.’” Id., 

at 235a. The Washington Supreme Court denied discretionary review. State v. Ronquillo, 136 Wash. 2d 1018, 

966 P. 2d 1277 (1998).

Shortly thereafter, the Washington Supreme Court 

clarified in an unrelated criminal case that “in for a dime, 

in for a dollar” is not the best descriptor of accomplice

liability under Washington law because an accomplice

must have knowledge of “the crime” that occurs. State v. 

Roberts, 142 Wash. 2d 471, 509–510, 14 P. 3d 713, 734– 

735 (2000). Therefore, an accomplice who knows of one

crime—the dime—is not guilty of a greater crime—the 

dollar—if he has no knowledge of that greater crime. It 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 7 

Opinion of the Court 

was error, then, to instruct a jury that an accomplice’s

knowledge of “‘a crime’” was sufficient to establish accomplice liability for “‘the crime.’” Ibid.2 The Washington 

Supreme Court limited this decision to instructions containing the phrase “a crime” and explicitly reaffirmed its

precedent establishing that jury instructions linking an

accomplice’s knowledge to “the crime,” such as the instruction used at Sarausad’s trial, comport with Washington

law. Id., at 511–512, 14 P. 3d, at 736 (discussing State v. 

Davis, 101 Wash. 2d 654, 656, 682 P. 2d 883, 884 (1984)).

An instruction that references “the crime” “copie[s] exactly 

the language from the accomplice liability statute” and 

properly hinges criminal punishment on knowledge of “the 

crime” for which the defendant was charged as an accomplice. 142 Wash. 2d, at 512, 14 P. 3d, at 736. 

D 

Sarausad next sought postconviction relief from the

Washington courts. He argued that although the accomplice-liability instruction used at his trial complied with 

Roberts, “an additional clarifying instruction should have 

been given” because the prosecutor may have confused the

jury by improperly arguing that he had been “‘in for a

dime, in for a dollar.’” Sarausad, 109 Wash. App., at 829, 

—————— 

2The instruction found faulty in Roberts provided in full: 

“You are instructed that a person is guilty of a crime if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable.

A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when

he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of a crime. 

“A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime, whether

present at the time of its commission or not, if, with knowledge that it 

will promote or facilitate its commission, he either: 

“(a) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to

commit the crime; or 

“(b) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing 

the crime.” 142 Wash. 2d, at 488–489, 14 P. 3d, at 724 (emphasis 

added). 
8 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

39 P. 3d, at 311. Therefore, he argued, the jury may have 

convicted him as an accomplice to second-degree murder

based solely on his admission that he anticipated that an 

assault would occur at Ballard High School. 

The Washington Court of Appeals reexamined the trial

record in its entirety in light of Roberts, see 109 Wash. 

App., at 834, 39 P. 3d, at 313–314, but found no error 

requiring correction. According to the court, the prosecutor’s closing argument in its entirety did not convey “that

the jury could find Sarausad guilty as an accomplice to

murder if he had the purpose to facilitate an offense of any 

kind whatsoever, even a shoving match or fist fight.” Id., 

at 840, 39 P. 3d, at 317. The prosecutor’s “‘in for a dime,

in for a dollar’” illustration also did not convey that standard. Id., at 842–843, 39 P. 3d, at 318. The court explained that in every situation but one, the prosecutor 

clearly did not use that phrase to argue that Sarausad 

could be convicted of murder if he intended only a fistfight.

Instead, she used it to convey a “gang mentality” that 

requires a wrong to the gang to be avenged by any means 

necessary. Ibid. Thus, according to the prosecutor, when 

a fight did not work, Sarausad knew that a shooting was 

required to avenge his gang. See ibid. 

There was one “in for a dime, in for a dollar” hypothetical in the prosecutor’s closing that did not convey this

gang-mentality meaning and thus, the court recognized,

“may or may not be problematic under Roberts” depending

on how it was interpreted. Id., at 843, 39 P. 3d, at 318.3 

—————— 

3The prosecutor had argued in the hypothetical that an accomplice 

who knows that he is helping someone assault a victim bears responsibility if the victim is killed. The hypothetical stated in full: 

“Let me give you a good example of accomplice liability. A friend 

comes up to you and says, ‘Hold this person’s arms while I hit him.’

You say, ‘Okay, I don’t know that person, anyway.’ You hold the arms. 

The person not only gets assaulted, he gets killed. You are an accomplice and you can’t come back and say, ‘Well, I only intended this much 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 9 

Opinion of the Court 

The court concluded that it did not need to decide whether 

the hypothetical was improper under state law because, 

even if it was, it did not prejudice Sarausad. Sarausad’s 

jury was properly instructed and “the prosecutor made it

crystal clear to the jury that the State wanted Sarausad

found guilty . . . because he knowingly facilitated the 

drive-by shooting and for no other reason.” Id., at 843– 

844, 39 P. 3d, at 319. 

Sarausad sought discretionary postconviction review 

from the Supreme Court of Washington. In denying his

petition, the court held that “the trial court correctly

instructed the jury” that knowledge of the particular crime

committed was required. App. to Pet. for Cert. 191a. The 

court also found that no prejudicial error resulted from the

prosecutor’s potentially improper hypothetical. Id., at 

192a. “[W]hatever the flaws in the argument, the prosecutor properly focused on Mr. Sarausad’s knowing participation in the shooting, not in some lesser altercation.” Ibid. 

E 

Sarausad filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus

in Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254.

The District Court granted the petition, finding “ample 

evidence that the jury was confused about what elements

had to be established in order for [Sarausad] to be found 

guilty of second degree murder and second degree attempted murder.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 129a. The Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the 

state postconviction court unreasonably applied this 

Court’s decisions in Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62 

(1991), Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979), and 

—————— 

damage to happen.’ Your presence, your readiness to assist caused the 

crime to occur and you are an accomplice. The law in the State of 

Washington says, if you’re in for a dime, you’re in for a dollar. If you’re

there or even if you’re not there and you’re helping in some fashion to

bring about this crime, you are just as guilty.” App. 38. 
10 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), in affirming

Sarausad’s conviction in spite of ambiguous jury instructions and the “‘reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . 

applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates 

the Constitution.” 479 F. 3d, at 683 (quoting Estelle, 

supra, at 72). The court denied rehearing en banc over the

dissent of five judges. Sarausad v. Porter, 503 F. 3d 822 

(2007). We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. ___ (2008), and 

now reverse. 

II 

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 

Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, a federal court may 

grant habeas relief on a claim “adjudicated on the merits” 

in state court only if the decision “was contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court 

of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1). Where, as 

here, it is the state court’s application of governing federal

law that is challenged, the decision “‘must be shown to be 

not only erroneous, but objectively unreasonable.’” Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U. S. 433, 436 (2004) (per curiam) 

(quoting Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U. S. 1, 5 (2003) (per 

curiam)); see also Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465, 473 

(2007) (“The question under AEDPA is not whether a

federal court believes the state court’s determination was 

incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold”). 

Our habeas precedent places an “especially heavy”

burden on a defendant who, like Sarausad, seeks to show 

constitutional error from a jury instruction that quotes a 

state statute. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U. S. 145, 155 

(1977). Even if there is some “ambiguity, inconsistency, or 

deficiency” in the instruction, such an error does not necessarily constitute a due process violation. Middleton, 

supra, at 437. Rather, the defendant must show both that 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 11 

Opinion of the Court 

the instruction was ambiguous and that there was “‘a

reasonable likelihood’” that the jury applied the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Estelle, supra, at 72 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 

U. S. 370, 380 (1990)). In making this determination, the 

jury instruction “‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ 

but must be considered in the context of the instructions 

as a whole and the trial record.” Estelle, supra, at 72 

(quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 147 (1973)).

Because it is not enough that there is some “slight possibility” that the jury misapplied the instruction, Weeks v. 

Angelone, 528 U. S. 225, 236 (2000), the pertinent question 

“is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the 

entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due 

process,’” Estelle, supra, at 72 (quoting Cupp, supra, at 

147). 

A 

The Washington courts reasonably concluded that the

trial court’s instruction to the jury was not ambiguous.

The instruction parroted the language of the statute,

requiring that an accomplice “in the commission of the 

crime” take action “with knowledge that it will promote or

facilitate the commission of the crime.” App. 16–17 (emphasis added); Wash. Rev. Code §§9A.08.020(2)(c), (3)(a) 

(2008). It is impossible to assign any meaning to this

instruction different from the meaning given to it by the

Washington courts. By its plain terms, it instructed the 

jury to find Sarausad guilty as an accomplice “in the commission of the [murder]” only if he acted “with knowledge

that [his conduct] will promote or facilitate the commission of the [murder].” App. 16–17.4 Because the conclu-

—————— 

4The dissent would reverse the Washington state courts based on the 

alleged confusion in Washington courts, and specifically in the Washington Court of Appeals on direct review, about the meaning of the 
12 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

sion reached by the Washington courts that the jury instruction was unambiguous was not objectively unreasonable, the Court of Appeals’ 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1) inquiry 

should have ended there.5 

—————— 

Washington accomplice liability statute. Post, at 2–5 (opinion of 

SOUTER, J.). But the confusion in the Court of Appeals over the application of the statute involved the related, but legally distinct, question

whether an accomplice is required to share the specific intent of the 

principal actor under Washington law. On direct appeal, respondent

argued that he should not have been convicted as an accomplice to 

murder because he did not have the specific intent to kill. The Washington Court of Appeals rejected that argument because “it was not

necessary for the State to prove Sarausad knew Ronquillo had a gun, or

knew that there was a potential for gunplay that day” under Washington law, App. to Pet. for Cert. 266a, where “accomplice liability predicates criminal liability on general knowledge of a crime, rather than

specific knowledge of the elements of the principal’s crime,” id., at 259a. 

But the Washington Court of Appeals never held that knowledge of a 

completely different crime, such as assault, would be sufficient under

Washington law for accomplice liability for murder. See id., at 258a– 

259a; see also In re Domingo, 155 Wash. 2d 356, 367–368, 119 P. 3d 

816, 822 (2005) (“[N]either Davis nor any of this court’s decisions 

subsequent to Davis approves of the proposition that accomplice liability attaches for any and all crimes committed by the principal so long

as the putative accomplice knowingly aided in any one of the crimes”).

In other words, the Court of Appeals had evaluated whether respondent’s conviction required a specific intent versus a general intent to

kill, not whether it required knowledge of a murder versus knowledge

of an assault—the issue under review here. Thus, the confusion in the 

state courts referenced by the dissent has no bearing on the question

presented in this appeal, and does not support the dissent’s argument

that the jury instruction in question was ambiguous. 5To the extent that the Court of Appeals attempted to rewrite state 

law by proposing that the instruction should have included “an explicit

statement that an accomplice must have knowledge of . . . the actual

crime the principal intends to commit,” 479 F. 3d 671, 689–690 (CA9

2007), it compounded its error. The Washington Supreme Court 

expressly held that the jury instruction correctly set forth state law,

App. to Pet. for Cert. 191a, and we have repeatedly held that “it is not

the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 

67–68 (1991). 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 13 

Opinion of the Court 

B 

Even if we agreed that the instruction was ambiguous, 

the Court of Appeals still erred in finding that the instruction was so ambiguous as to cause a federal constitutional

violation, as required for us to reverse the state court’s

determination under AEDPA, 28 U. S. C. §2254(d). The 

Washington courts reasonably applied this Court’s precedent when they determined that there was no “reasonable 

likelihood” that the prosecutor’s closing argument caused 

Sarausad’s jury to apply the instruction in a way that 

relieved the State of its burden to prove every element of 

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor

consistently argued that Sarausad was guilty as an accomplice because he acted with knowledge that he was

facilitating a driveby shooting. Indeed, Sarausad and 

Reyes had admitted under oath that they anticipated a 

fight, Tr. 2671, 2794, and yet the prosecutor never argued 

that their admission was a concession of accomplice liability for murder. She instead argued that Sarausad knew 

that a shooting was intended, App. 123, because he drove 

his car in a way that would help Ronquillo “fire those

shots,” id., at 39. The closing argument of Sarausad’s

attorney also homed in on the key legal question: He

challenged the jury to look for evidence that Sarausad

“had knowledge that his assistance would promote or 

facilitate the crime of premeditated murder” and argued

that no such evidence existed. Id., at 83. 

Put simply, there was no evidence of ultimate juror confusion as to the test for accomplice liability under Washington 

law. Rather, the jury simply reached a unanimous decision

that the State had proved Sarausad’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, every state and federal appellate court

that reviewed the verdict found that the evidence supporting 

Sarausad’s knowledge of a shooting was legally sufficient to

convict him under Washington law. 479 F. 3d, at 677–683; 

Sarausad, 109 Wash. App., at 844–845, 39 P. 3d, at 319. 
14 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

Given the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction, 

along with the jury’s failure to convict Reyes—who also had 

been charged as an accomplice to murder and also had admitted knowledge of a possible fight—it was not objectively 

unreasonable for the Washington courts to conclude that the 

jury convicted Sarausad only because it believed that he,

unlike Reyes, had knowledge of more than just a fistfight. 

The reasoning of the Court of Appeals, which failed to review

the state courts’ resolution of this question through the 

deferential lens of AEDPA, does not convince us otherwise. 

First, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence of 

Sarausad’s knowledge of the shooting was so “thin” that

the jury must have incorrectly believed that proof of such 

knowledge was not required. 479 F. 3d, at 692–693. That 

conclusion, however, is foreclosed by the Court of Appeals’ 

own determination that the evidence was sufficient for a 

rational jury to reasonably infer that Sarausad knowingly 

facilitated the driveby shooting. As explained above, the

Court of Appeals acknowledged that the evidence showed 

that Ronquillo, while seated in Sarausad’s front passenger 

seat, tied a bandana over the lower part of his face and 

pulled out a gun. Id., at 681. There also was evidence 

that Sarausad then asked the Diablos in the other car, 

“‘Are you ready?’” before driving to the school and

“slow[ing] his car in front of the school in a manner that 

facilitated a drive-by shooting.” Ibid. Other gang members testified to prior knowledge of the gun and to discussing the shooting as an option during the gang meeting 

held between trips to Ballard High School. Id., at 682. 

There also was testimony from Sarausad that he suspected that members of the Bad Side Posse would be

armed when they returned to Ballard High School, ibid., 

making it reasonable to conclude that Sarausad would

expect his gang to be similarly prepared for the confrontation. There was nothing “thin” about the evidence of

Sarausad’s guilt. 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 15 

Opinion of the Court 

Second, the Court of Appeals faulted the prosecutor for

arguing “clearly and forcefully” for an “in for a dime, in for 

a dollar” theory of accomplice liability. Id., at 693. But 

the Washington Court of Appeals conducted an in-depth 

analysis of the prosecutor’s argument and reasonably 

found that it contained, at most, one problematic hypothetical. Sarausad, supra, at 842–843, 39 P. 3d, at 318– 

319. The state court’s conclusion that the one hypothetical

did not taint the proper instruction of state law was reasonable under this Court’s precedent, which acknowledges 

that “arguments of counsel generally carry less weight 

with a jury than do instructions from the court.” Boyde, 

494 U. S., at 384. On habeas review, the Court of Appeals

should not have dissected the closing argument and exaggerated the possible effect of one hypothetical in it. There 

was nothing objectively unreasonable about the Washington courts’ resolution of this question.6 

Third, and last, the Court of Appeals believed that the

jury’s questions “demonstrated substantial confusion 

about what the State was required to prove.” 479 F. 3d, at 

693. Sarausad focuses special attention on this factor, 

—————— 

6The dissent accuses us of downplaying this ambiguous hypothetical,

arguing that it is so rife with improper meaning that it “infect[ed] every 

further statement bearing on accomplice law the prosecutor made,” 

post, at 7, and ensured that the jury misinterpreted the trial court’s 

properly-phrased instruction. We disagree. The proper inquiry is

whether the state court was objectively unreasonable in concluding that

the instruction (which precisely tracked the language of the accompliceliability statute) was not warped by this one-paragraph hypothetical in

an argument and rebuttal spanning 31 pages of the joint appendix. 

The state court’s conclusion was not unreasonable. The hypothetical

was presented during closing arguments, which juries generally “vie[w]

as the statements of advocates” rather than “as definitive and binding

statements of the law,” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 384 (1990), 

and which, as a whole, made clear that the State sought a guilty verdict

based solely on Sarausad’s “knowledge that his assistance would 

promote or facilitate the crime of premeditated murder,” App. 83; see

also id., at 123–124. 
16 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

Opinion of the Court 

arguing that it was the “failure to remedy” this confusion 

that sets this case apart from previous decisions and

establishes that the jury likely “did not understand accomplice liability” when it returned its verdict. Brief for 

Respondent 29, 31. But this Court has determined that 

the Constitution generally requires nothing more from a

trial judge than the type of answers given to the jury here. 

Weeks, 528 U. S., at 234. Where a judge “respond[s] to the

jury’s question by directing its attention to the precise

paragraph of the constitutionally adequate instruction

that answers its inquiry,” and the jury asks no followup 

question, this Court has presumed that the jury fully 

understood the judge’s answer and appropriately applied 

the jury instructions. Ibid. 

Under this established standard, it was not objectively 

unreasonable for the state court to conclude that 

Sarausad’s jury received the answers it needed to resolve 

its confusion.7 Its questions were spaced throughout seven 

—————— 

7The dissent argues that we “sideste[p] the thrust of this record” by

finding that the trial judge’s answers to the jury’s questions were 

satisfactory. Post, at 9–10. But our decision cannot turn on a de novo 

review of the record or a finding that the answers were “the best way to

answer jurors’ questions,” id., at 10. On federal habeas review, this 

Court’s inquiry is limited to whether the state court violated clearly

established federal law when it held that the jury applied the correct

standard, in light of the answers given to its questions. See 28 U. S. C. 

§2254(d)(1). On that issue, the state court was not objectively unreasonable; the jury’s questions were answered in a manner previously 

approved by this Court, and they consistently referred the jury to the 

correct standard for accomplice liability in Washington. The dissent 

also ignores the important fact that the jury convicted Ronquillo of

first-degree murder, convicted respondent of second-degree murder, 

and failed to reach an agreement on Reyes’ guilt, causing a mistrial on

the first-degree murder charge pending against him. The jury’s assignment of culpability to two of the codefendants, versus its deadlock

over a third who, like respondent, conceded knowledge of an assault,

demonstrates that the jury understood the legal significance of each 

defendant’s relative knowledge and intent with respect to the murder. 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 17 

Opinion of the Court 

days of deliberations, involved different criminal charges,

and implicated the interrelation of several different jury

instructions. The judge pinpointed his answers to the 

particular instructions responsive to the questions and

those instructions reflected state law. Under these circumstances, the state court did not act in an objectively

unreasonable manner in finding that the jury knew the

proper legal standard for conviction. 

III 

Because the state-court decision did not result in an 

“unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law,” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1), the Court of Appeals 

erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus to Sarausad.

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 1 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 07–772 

DOUG WADDINGTON, SUPERINTENDENT, 

WASHINGTON CORRECTIONS CENTER, 

PETITIONER v. CESAR SARAUSAD 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[January 21, 2009] 

JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS and 

JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. 

The issue in this habeas case is whether it was objectively reasonable for the state court to find that there was 

no reasonable likelihood that the jury convicted respondent Cesar Sarausad on a mistaken understanding of 

Washington law. The underlying question is whether the 

jury may have thought it could find Sarausad guilty as an

accomplice to murder on the theory that he assisted in

what he expected would be a fist fight, or whether the jury

knew that to convict him Washington law required it to 

conclude Sarausad aided in what he understood was intended to be a killing.

So far as the instructions addressed these alternatives, 

the judge charged the jurors in these words: 

“A person is an accomplice in the commission of a 

crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either: 

“(1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime or

“(2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning

or committing the crime.” App. 17. 

The majority answers the underlying question by rely-
2 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

ing on the general rule that incorporating a clear statute 

into a jury charge almost always produces an adequate 

instruction, which the jury is assumed to follow. The 

kicker of course is that the general rule is only good if the

incorporated statute is clear enough to require the jury to

find facts amounting to a violation of the law as correctly 

understood. 

Does the rule apply here? The majority says it does. It 

says the instruction quoted is unambiguous because it 

parrots the language of the Washington statute on accomplice liability, ante, at 11, and that “[i]t is impossible to

assign any meaning to this instruction” and, by extension,

the statute, “different from the meaning given to it by the 

Washington courts,” ibid. 

That is not, however, what the record shows. Rather 

than a single understanding, the Washington courts have 

produced a record of discordant positions on the meaning 

of the statute, and the Washington Court of Appeals can 

itself attest to a degree of difficulty in understanding the 

statutory requirement sufficient to show the statute to be

ambiguous and the statute-based instruction constitutionally inadequate: that court read the statute to mean just

the opposite of what the majority now claims it unambiguously requires.

On Sarausad’s direct appeal in 1998, the State Court of 

Appeals set out the principles on which it understood 

accomplice liability in Washington to be premised. It did 

not say that the accomplice must understand that he is

aiding in the commission of the same offense the principal 

has in mind, or the offense actually committed. Instead, 

the Washington Court of Appeals said this: 

“(1) To convict of accomplice liability, the State need 

not prove that principal and accomplice shared the

same mental state, (2) accomplice liability predicates 

criminal liability on general knowledge of a crime, 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 3 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

rather than specific knowledge of the elements of the 

principal’s crime, and (3) an accomplice, having 

agreed to participate in a criminal activity, runs the

risk that the primary actor will exceed the scope of the 

preplanned illegality.” Washington v. Ronquillo, No. 

35840–5–I etc. (Mar. 2, 1998), App. to Pet. for Cert.

233a, 258a–259a. 

In support, the court cited State v. Davis, 101 Wash. 2d 

654, 682 P. 2d 883 (1984), in which the Supreme Court of 

Washington noted that “an accomplice, having agreed to 

participate in a criminal act, runs the risk of having the 

primary actor exceed the scope of the preplanned illegality.” Id., at 658, 682 P. 2d, at 886. As today’s majority 

notes, ante, at 6, the state appellate court remarked that

the Washington law of accomplice liability (as it then 

understood it) “‘has been reduced to the maxim, “in for a 

dime, in for a dollar”’”; the court also held that “it was not 

necessary for the State to prove Sarausad . . . knew that

there was a potential for gunplay that day.” Washington 

v. Ronquillo, supra, at 235a, 266a. So much for the majority’s confidence that the statute-based instruction can only 

be understood as requiring what the State Supreme Court 

now says it requires: proof that the accomplice understood

that he was aiding in the commission of the very crime he

is charged with facilitating. 

The State Supreme Court clarified this requirement two

years after the Court of Appeals held against Sarausad. 

In State v. Roberts, 142 Wash. 2d 471, 14 P. 3d 713 (2000),

the Supreme Court of Washington held that the Court of 

Appeals’s “in for a dime, in for a dollar” view of accomplice

liability was a misreading of the statute and a flat-out 

misstatement of law. In Roberts, the State Supreme Court 

revisited Davis, which it explained as standing for the 

principle “that an accomplice need not have specific 

knowledge of every element of the crime committed by the 
4 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

principal, provided he has general knowledge of that 

specific crime.” 142 Wash. 2d, at 512, 14 P. 3d, at 736. 

Although a “general knowledge” of “that specific crime” 

intended by a confederate and eventually committed will 

suffice for the mental element of accomplice liability, mere

“knowledge by the accomplice that the principal intends to 

commit ‘a crime’ does not impose strict liability for any 

and all offenses that follow.” Id., at 513, 14 P. 3d, at 736. 

In other words, it was incorrect to read the statute as the 

Supreme Court of Washington had arguably done in Davis 

(and the State Court of Appeals certainly did in this case),

to mean that anyone who agrees “to participate in a criminal act . . . runs the risk of [accomplice liability for a more 

serious crime if] the primary actor exceed[s] the scope of 

the preplanned illegality,” 101 Wash. 2d, at 658, 682 P. 2d, 

at 886. The reductive maxim “in for a dime, in for a dollar” was now understood to be a distortion of Washington’s

accomplice liability law.

The Washington Court of Appeals said as much when

Sarausad appeared before it the second time, seeking 

postconviction relief: “[Sarausad] points out, and correctly 

so, that this court decided [his direct] appeal on the premise that ‘in for a dime, in for a dollar’ correctly characterized Washington accomplice liability law. We said that ‘an 

accomplice, “having agreed to participate in a criminal act,

runs the risk of having the primary actor exceed the scope 

of the preplanned illegality.”’” Sarausad v. Washington, 

109 Wash. App. 824, 833–834, 39 P. 3d 308, 313 (2001).

The Court of Appeals said that it had “erred” in determining that it was unnecessary for the State to prove

Sarausad knew he was facilitating a drive-by shooting. 

Id., at 837, 39 P. 3d, at 315. 

This profession of judicial error in understanding the 

law is the touchmark not of a clear statute, but of an 

indistinct or perplexing one, which the law calls ambiguous. The majority is thus unquestionably mistaken in 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 5 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

finding it “impossible to assign any meaning to [the instruction quoting the statute that is] different from the 

meaning” the majority thinks is clear. Ante, at 11. Given 

that error on the majority’s part, it has not justified its 

reversal of the Ninth Circuit by showing that the instruction was clear.* 

There remains the question whether the majority’s

second conclusion is also unjustifiable: despite inadequate 

instruction, did the jurors nevertheless apply the correct

view of state law, which only recently, and after the trial, 

attained its current clarity? The state postconviction court

found no reasonable likelihood that the jurors failed to

apply a correct understanding of accomplice liability, 

Sarausad v. Washington, supra, at 843–844, 39 P. 3d, at 

318–319, and Sarausad’s burden here (on federal habeas) 

—————— 

*As the majority notes, ante, at 11, n. 4, in the Washington Court of 

Appeals on direct review, Sarausad’s counsel claimed that state law 

required that an accomplice to murder have a specific intent to kill (or 

aid in killing). The Court of Appeals rejected this position. Contrary to

the majority view, ante, at 12, n. 4, in gauging the adequacy of an

instruction incorporating statutory terms, the fact that defense counsel 

may have asked for too much does nothing to lessen the pertinence of 

opaque state law or its uncertainty in the minds of the state judges.

The Court of Appeals in its very response to counsel’s argument demonstrated its misunderstanding of the scope of Washington accomplice 

liability law: “accomplice liability predicates criminal liability on 

general knowledge of a crime.” Washington v. Ronquillo, No. 35840–5– 

I etc. (Mar. 2, 1998), App. to Pet. for Cert. 233a, 259a (emphasis added).

For that matter, the Court of Appeals subsequently disavowed the very 

statement used by the majority to support its contention that the court 

was focused solely on the issue of specific intent. The court, in the 

postconviction proceedings, concluded that it was in fact necessary for 

the State to prove Sarausad knew Ronquillo had a gun, or knew there

was potential for gunplay that day. Sarausad v. Washington, 109 

Wash. App. 824, 837, 39 P. 3d 308, 315 (2001). This knowledge would 

have been necessary regardless of whether the law required Sarausad 

to have specific or general intent to kill, unless, of course, accomplice

liability was predicated on an “in for a dime, in for a dollar” theory of

liability and knowledge of a fistfight could suffice. 
6 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

is to demonstrate that the state court was objectively

unreasonable in drawing this conclusion, 28 U. S. C.

§2254(d)(1). The District Court and the Ninth Circuit 

found he had done just that, whereas the majority today 

insists those courts were wrong.

The majority’s position is simply unrealistic. Even a 

juror with a preternatural grasp of the statutory subtlety 

would have lost his grip after listening to the prosecutor’s

closing argument, which first addressed the state law of 

accomplice liability with a statement that was flatout 

error, followed that with a confusing argument that could 

have reflected either the correct or the erroneous view, 

and concluded with an argument that could have fit either

theory but ended with a phrase defined to express the 

erroneous one. 

In her first pass at the subject, the prosecutor said

unequivocally that assaultive, not murderous, intent on

Sarausad’s part would suffice for the intent required of an 

accomplice to murder. 

“Let me give you a good example of accomplice liability. A friend comes up to you and says, ‘Hold this person’s arms while I hit him.’ You say, ‘Okay, I don’t 

like that person, anyway.’ You hold the arms. The 

person not only gets assaulted, he gets killed. You are 

an accomplice and you can’t come back and say, ‘Well,

I only intended this much damage to happen.’ Your 

presence, your readiness to assist caused the crime to 

occur and you are an accomplice. The law in the State 

of Washington says, if you’re in for a dime, you’re in 

for a dollar. If you’re there or even if you’re not there

and you’re helping in some fashion to bring about this 

crime, you are just as guilty.” App. 38. 

Thus, in what the majority would launder into “one problematic hypothetical,” ante, at 15, the prosecutor introduced the “in for a dime, in for a dollar” locution, which 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 7 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

she defined to mean that readiness to aid in the commission of any crime thought to be intended by the principal

is enough intent for accomplice liability for whatever

crime the principal actually commits. This lead-off misstatement of the law, never corrected by the trial judge, 

infects every further statement bearing on accomplice law

the prosecutor made, for into each effort she consistently 

introduced the viral catchphrase “in for a dime, in for a

dollar.” 

In a second reference to accomplice law, the prosecutor

discussed gang mentality and used the phrase, without 

modifying her earlier explanation of its legal meaning,

then followed up with a reference to the evidence that 

could have fit either the erroneous theory or the law as 

corrected by Roberts: 

“Mr. Sarausad [was] present and . . . certainly ready

to assist. And I remind you, too, what you heard not 

only from . . . the gang expert in this case, but from

[gang] member after [gang] member who told you that

an affront to one is an affront to all, ‘When you disrespect me you disrespect my gang.’ . . . 

“They were all there that day . . . ready to back each

other up in whatever happened. In for a dime, they

were in for a dollar and they were sticking together. 

“ . . . You know, the best indication of what was going on just before the shooting is gleaned by what 

happened immediately after the fact. . . . Nothing

[was] said to the [gunman], because there was nothing 

to say. Nobody asked him why he did it. They all

knew. They all knew what they were there for. An affront to one is an affront to all.” App. 40–41. 

The confusion of the correct and erroneous theories of 

liability showed up again in the prosecutor’s final rebuttal: 

“Mr. Sarausad’s lawyer says that an accomplice has 

to have the same mental state as the person doing the 
8 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

shooting. . . . Not true, not true. And that’s not what 

the instruction says. 

“And I’ve told you the old adage, you’re in for a

dime, you’re in for a dollar. If their logic was correct,

they’re not ever an accomplice to anything. The getaway driver for a bank robbery would say, ‘I just told 

him to rob them, I didn’t tell him to shoot him, I didn’t 

do anything.’ The example I gave you earlier, ‘I just

told my friend to hold the arms down of this person 

while he hit him, I didn’t tell him to kill him, I’m not 

guilty of anything.’ If you’re in for a dime, you’re in 

for a dollar. 

“When they rode down to Ballard High School that

last time, I say they knew what they were up to. They

knew they were there to commit a crime, to disrespect

the gang, to fight, to shoot, to get that respect back. A 

fist didn’t work, pushing didn’t work. Shouting insults at them didn’t work. Shooting was going to 

work. In for a dime, you’re in for a dollar.” Id., at 

123–124. 

In the prosecutor’s jumble of rules, one proposition is both 

clear and clearly erroneous: the statement of law, “in for a 

dime, in for a dollar.” It unmistakably contradicts the 

construction for which Sarausad’s counsel correctly argued, which would have required the jury to find that

Sarausad understood that the object was killing in order

to find him guilty as an accomplice to murder. Id., at 83– 

84. 

The point here is not to excoriate the prosecutor, who

tried this case in the period between Roberts and Davis 

and could fairly assume that her expansive (“in for a dime

. . .”) view of accomplice liability was good law in her State. 

The point is just the obvious one that cannot be evaded

without playing make-believe with the record: an uncertain instruction by the trial judge was combined with 
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009) 9 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

confounding prosecutorial argument incorporating what

the state courts now acknowledge was a clearly-erroneous

statement of law, in contrast to the view of the law argued 

by defense counsel. In these circumstances jury confusion is all but inevitable and jury error the reasonable 

likelihood. 

If there were any doubt about that, one could simply 

look at the record of the jury’s deliberations, in the course 

of which the jurors repeatedly asked the court to clarify

the law on accomplice liability. They began deliberating

on Friday, October 21, 1994, and the following Tuesday, 

they asked (as to the instructions laying out the crime of

first-degree murder and the required premeditation), 

“does the ‘intent’ apply to (the defendant only) or to (the 

defendant or his accomplice)?” App. 126. The judge replied, “Refer to instructions 46 and 47 and consider your

instructions as a whole.” Ibid. Three days later, October

28, this time in reference to the second-degree murder

instructions, the jury enquired a second time about accomplice liability, asking whether “intentional appl[ies] to 

only the defendant or only his accomplice?” Id., at 128. 

The judge’s response was nearly identical to his first one:

“Refer to instructions 45 & 46 and consider the instructions as a whole.” Ibid. The following Monday, the jury 

returned to deliberations and requested help yet again,

spelling out its confusion: “We are having difficulty agreeing on the legal definition and concept of ‘accomplice.’ . . . 

[W]hen a person willing[ly] participates in a group activity, is that person an accomplice to any crime committed

by anyone in the group?” Id., at 129. Once again, the

judge sent the jurors back to the written charge: “Refer to 

instructions . . . 45, 46, 47, and 48 and consider your instructions as a whole.” Ibid. 

The majority sidesteps the thrust of this record by suggesting that the jurors failed to let the court know of any 

confusion: it says the jurors’ questions “involved different 
10 WADDINGTON v. SARAUSAD 

SOUTER, J., dissenting 

criminal charges, and implicated the interrelation of 

several different jury instructions.” Ante, at 17. But this 

simply ignores the disclosure obviously common to all 

those questions: the jurors did not understand the state of

mind the prosecution had to prove for accomplice liability. 

Their final question makes this unmistakable. 

The majority says, in any case, that the judge’s repeated

references back to the written instructions were enough 

and that “it was not objectively unreasonable for the state

court to conclude that [the] jury received the answers it 

needed to resolve its confusion.” Ante, at 16. But after the 

jurors asked three times? In many trials, reference back 

to written instructions would be the best way to answer 

jurors’ questions, which may reflect uncertain memory,

not deficient instruction. But not in this case: the accomplice liability instruction was defective owing to the ambiguity of the statutory language it incorporated, and its 

deficiency was underscored by the prosecutor’s erroneous 

argument. Telling the jurors to read an inadequate instruction three more times did nothing to improve upon it

or enlighten the readers. The District Court and the 

Ninth Circuit drew the only conclusion reasonably possible

on this record. I respectfully dissent.