Document: 541 U.S. 433 MIDDLETON, WARDENv.McNEIL. No. 03-1028. Supreme Court of United States. Decided May 3, 2004. Respondent was charged with murdering her husband after an argument. Under California law, the malice element needed for a murder conviction is negated if one kills out fear imminent peril. If that unreasonable but genuine, California's "imperfect self-defense" doctrine reduces crime to voluntary manslaughter. The manslaughter jury instruction in this case erroneously defined peril, prosecutor's closing statement correctly stated law. convicted second-degree murder. In affirming, Appeal acknowledged erroneous instruction, found instructions as whole and argument made correct standard clear. Federal District later denied respondent federal habeas relief, Ninth Circuit reversed. Held: erred finding eliminated respondent's imperfect self-defense claim state appellate court unreasonably applied law by ignoring unchallenged uncorrected instruction. A prisoner entitled relief court's adjudication his constitutional "contrary to, or involved application of, clearly established law." 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). When fails give effect requirement State prove every criminal offense, question whether so infected entire trial violates due process. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 62, 72. Here, there "`reasonable likelihood has . [ambiguous] way' Constitution." Ibid. Given were three contrary one, did not apply when it no reasonable misled Though also faulted relying on argument, nothing Boyde California, 494 370, precludes from assuming counsel's arguments clarified ambiguous charge, particularly they resolve ambiguity defendant's favor. Certiorari granted; 344 F. 3d 988, reversed remanded. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT PER CURIAM. 1 * Sally Marie McNeil killed over infidelity spending habits. Respondent's theory at had tried strangle during she escaped, fetched shotgun bedroom, him life. Fingernail marks indeed neck shooting. She testified been abusive, defense expert opined suffered Battered Women's Syndrome. countered forensic evidence showing fingernail husband's may have self-inflicted, testimony 911 operator who overheard tell shot because would longer tolerate behavior. 2 "[m]urder unlawful killing human being aforethought." Cal. Penal Code Ann. 187(a) (West 1999). re Christian S., 7 4th 768, 773, 872 P. 2d 574, 576 (1994). Where (but nevertheless genuine), manslaughter—a known self-defense." At trial, judge instructed these concepts follows: 3 "`The specific intent manslaughter, opposed murder, must arise upon [the] following circumstances: 4 5 "`[A]n honest belief necessity defend oneself against peril life great bodily injury. That be self-defense. 6 "`To establish [and] burden People beyond doubt each elements act which caused death done honest, even though unreasonable, 8 9 "`A person, another person actual injury, unlawfully, guilty This same situation, seeing knowing facts, belief. Such 10 "`An "imminent" apparent, present, immediate instantly dealt with, appear time slayer person.'" App. Pet. Cert. 31-33. 11 last four words instruction—"`as person'"—are part relevant form Jury Instructions, Criminal, 5.17 (6th ed. 1996), apparently included error. however, 12 appealed basis error upheld conviction, reasoning: 13 "[R]eversal required `[e]rror cannot predicated isolated phrase, sentence excerpt since correctness determined its relation other light whole.' all self-defense, are considered their entirety, reasonably likely misunderstood requirements component On contrary, repeatedly informed defendant (or actual) need then offense could Furthermore, arguing jury, prosecutor set forth appropriate standard, stating `[i]f you believe actually believed lessens what called, "voluntary manslaughter."'" 33-34 (citations omitted). 14 sought relief. petition, 988 (2003). We now grant State's petition writ certiorari motion leave proceed forma pauperis, reverse. II 15 States." "Where, here, governing challenged, shown only erroneous, objectively unreasonable." Yarborough Gentry, 540 1, (2003) (per curiam); see Williams Taylor, 529 362, 409 (2000). 16 process requirement. See Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 520-521 (1979). Nonetheless, ambiguity, inconsistency, deficiency rises level violation. "`whether ailing resulting process.'" 72 (1991) (quoting Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 147 (1973)). "`[A] single judged artificial isolation, viewed context overall charge.'" 378 (1990) Cupp, supra, 146-147). charge ambiguous, challenged Estelle, Boyde, 380). 17 held imminent-peril "eliminated" claim, "completely ignor[ing] jury." 3d, 999. It bound consider whole, irrelevant "[t]he Id., 997. 18 conclusion failed deference decision. Contrary Circuit's description, "ignor[e]" faulty merely given multiple instances (at least three, 434-435) where unreasonable. 34. misled. 19 thought references unreasonableness definition "imminent peril." alone does make them irrelevant; defines terms instead describes allowing import same. Perhaps reasoned peril" earlier, ("actual peril") meant that, although existence not. interpretation require such rare combination extremely refined lawyerly parsing gullible acceptance result makes conceivable sense, implicit rejection possibility surely 20 noting presumed more influence than counsel. 999 (citing 384). But says thing opposite; worst internally inconsistent. Nothing charge. assumption apt resolves favor defendant. judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 21 ordered.

Category: 0