Opinion ID: 476313
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harmless Error in the Context of a Sandstrom Instruction

Text: 9 The Supreme Court recently decided that the harmless error doctrine applies to a Sandstrom instruction that impermissibly shifts the burden of proof. Rose v. Clark, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3107, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986). The district court here, relying on McGuinn v. Crist, 657 F.2d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 990, 102 S.Ct. 1614, 71 L.Ed.2d 850 (1982), decided that the Sandstrom error was harmless because intent was not a disputed issue in the trial. We note that the district court followed the two-step analysis we first announced in In re Hamilton, 721 F.2d 1189, 1191 (9th Cir.1983), and explained in Hagler v. Callahan, 764 F.2d 711, 714 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3334, 92 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986). The Hamilton-Hagler rule required first a determination whether intent was disputed and second whether, if disputed, the error was harmless. Hagler, 764 F.2d at 714. This formulation does not survive Rose, because Rose overrules our holding that if intent was disputed the error cannot be harmless. Hagler, 764 F.2d at 714. Under Rose, whether intent was disputed or not, the Sandstrom instruction must be evaluated under the harmless error doctrine. Harmless error cases do not turn on whether the defendant conceded the factual issue on which the error bore. Rose, 106 S.Ct. at 3109. Harmless error analysis determines whether the evidence was so dispositive of intent that a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it unnecessary to rely on the presumption. Id. (quoting Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U.S. at 97 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. at 973 n. 5 (Powell, J., dissenting)). 10 Stated more generally, a district court must review the entire record, and assess the weight of the evidence to determine whether [it] can conclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'  Hagler, 764 F.2d at 715 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). Here the court said, because an eyewitness saw Herd walk behind the victim, grab her from behind, strike her several times with a knife and pull at her purse strap, it was unlikely that any reasonable juror could have found that Herd was the person who committed the acts causing the death without also finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he did so intentionally. The court did not find the brief testimony of alcohol and drug consumption persuasive evidence that Herd was incapable of forming the requisite intent. Because the court applied the appropriate legal standard we affirm its decision that the Sandstrom error was harmless.