Opinion ID: 3064426
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does this exclude “implied” malice?

Text: The trial court notified counsel, and Musladin’s attorney said that he would “drop everything and be right over,” which he did, arriving ten to fifteen minutes after he was summoned. Before defense counsel arrived, however, the trial court returned the note to the jury with the written direction: “REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS.”2 Less than an hour later, the jury returned its verdict of guilty on all charges. Because the state courts denied this claim on the merits but without a reasoned decision,3 “we independently review the 1 The crossed-out portion appears as it did in the jury’s note. 2 Musladin agrees that the original jury instructions correctly state that under California law, express malice is required for a verdict of firstdegree murder. 3 On Musladin’s direct appeal, the California court of appeal ruled that he had waived this claim. On his state habeas appeal, however, the CaliMUSLADIN v. LAMARQUE 1693 record, [but] still defer to the state court’s ultimate decision.” Pirtle, 313 F.3d at 1167.