Opinion ID: 895584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Babb’s claim for habeas relief

Text: unconstitutional because it omits an element of premeditated murder. The district court held that because the Kazalyn instruction failed to provide a definition of deliberation that was independent of premeditation, the instruction was unconstitutional. The district court thus concluded that it was bound by this Court’s holding in Polk, despite the Nevada Supreme Court’s subsequent holding in Nika that Byford represented a change in, rather than a clarification of, the law. On appeal, the State argues that after the Nika decision, Polk does not control the outcome of this case. We agree with the State. The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Nika made clear that under pre-Byford law, premeditation, deliberation and wilfulness were not distinct and independent elements of first degree murder, and that Byford’s decision requiring separate definitions for these terms represented a change in, rather than a clarification of, the law. There is an important distinction between decisions that clarify the law and decisions that change the law. A clarification is essentially a “correction” that provides the proper interpretation of a statute, whereas a change in the law is a new court-created 22 BABB V . LOZOWSKY rule. Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228 (2001). Federal due process requires that a state vacate a conviction, even a final conviction that has been affirmed on appeal, where a clarification reveals that a defendant was convicted “for conduct that [the state’s] criminal statute, as properly interpreted, does not prohibit.” Id. There was language in Byford suggesting that the decision represented a clarification of the law. The Byford court stated, for instance, that “[i]t is clear from the statute that all three elements, willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused can be convicted of first degree murder.” 994 P.2d at 713–14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There are also portions of Byford, however, that indicate that the terms premeditated and deliberate were not distinct elements. Id. (noting that “deliberate” and “premeditated” were previously both included in jury instructions without being individually defined and citing Greene, 931 P.2d at 61, which said “the terms premeditated, deliberate and willful were a single phrase, meaning simply that the actor intended to commit the act and intended death as a result of the act”). Nika made clear that Byford represented a change in the law, and that any language in Byford suggesting it was a clarification was dicta. 198 P.3d at 850. Whether a particular decision represents a change in, or clarification of, the law is a matter of state law. See Fiore, 531 U.S. at 228 (noting uncertainty regarding whether decision represented clarification or change in law and certifying question to Pennsylvania Supreme Court); see also Bunkley, 538 U.S at 842 (noting state court decision represented change in state law and certifying question to Florida Supreme Court regarding when change occurred). BABB V . LOZOWSKY 23 The Nika decision explaining that Byford represented a change in, rather than a clarification of, law undermines the basis of this Court’s holding in Polk with regard to the constitutionality of the Kazalyn instruction. Polk was premised on the understanding that the Nevada murder statute mandated separate definitions of deliberation and premeditation. 503 F.3d at 910 (citing portion of Nika stating, “[i]t is clear from the statute that all three elements, willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused can be convicted of first degree murder”). “[W]here the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority, a three-judge panel should consider itself bound by the later and controlling authority, and should reject the prior circuit opinion as having been effectively overruled.” Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because the Nevada Supreme Court, which is the ultimate authority in interpreting and deciding questions of Nevada state law, explained in Nika that Byford was a change in, rather than a clarification of, the law concerning premeditated murder, Polk’s holding has been disapproved (effectively overruled by Nika) and therefore does not govern the outcome of this case.4 Cf. United States v. Flores-Meja, 687 F.3d 1213, 1215 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding that because California Supreme Court decision did not change elements of robbery, Ninth Circuit precedent still governed). Babb argues that Polk’s holding survives Nika and that by failing to provide an independent definition of deliberation, 4 Chambers v. McDaniel, 549 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2008), which held that the Kazalyn instruction was unconstitutional, citing Polk, was decided before Nika, and so is also not controlling here. 24 BABB V . LOZOWSKY the Kazalyn instruction violated her due process rights even if Byford was a change in the law. We disagree. The Kazalyn instruction did not treat deliberation and premeditation as distinct elements of the mens rea for first degree murder requiring independent definitions because, as Nika explained, they were not separate elements under Nevada law until Byford. Although the Supreme Court has held that jury instructions omitting an element of the crime unconstitutionally diminish the state’s burden, see, e.g., United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509–10, 522–23 (1995); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 11–13 (1999), whether a term in a statute constitutes a distinct element of the crime with an independent definition is a question of state law. See Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 636 (1991) (“In cases, like this one, involving state criminal statutes . . . we are not free to substitute our own interpretation of state statutes for those of a State’s courts. If a State’s courts have determined that certain statutory alternatives are mere means of committing a single offense, rather than independent elements of the crime, we simply are not at liberty to ignore that determination and conclude that the alternatives are, in fact, independent elements under state law.”); see also Evanchyk v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court responded to certified question that intent to kill is an essential element of the offense of conspiracy to commit first degree murder). There is no constitutionally mandated definition of premeditation or deliberation, and whether these are independent elements with distinct meanings is a question of state law.5 5 By way of example, federal law, like the Nevada murder statute, also defines first degree murder as any killing that is “willful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated.” 18 U.S.C. § 1111. Model federal jury instructions, like the Kazalyn instruction, conflate the definitions of BABB V . LOZOWSKY 25 Polk did not hold, and could not have held, that where a statute includes both premeditation and deliberation in its definition of the mens rea for first degree murder, it is a violation of due process if the jury instruction fails to provide independent definitions for each of those terms. After Nika, Babb’s claim that the Kazalyn instruction violated her due process rights because it did not provide a distinct definition for deliberation must fail.
be applied to her because it narrowed the definition of premeditated murder before Babb’s conviction became final. The district court also determined that, because the change in the law announced in Byford occurred before Babb’s conviction became final, it was a violation of her due process rights not to apply the new instruction (which narrowed the scope of conduct that could be defined as premeditated murder) to her case. We agree with the district court. The district court cited Fiore and Bunkley as the bases for its decision.6 In Fiore, the Supreme Court invalidated a premeditation and deliberation, stating “Premeditation means with planning or deliberation.” Kevin F. O’Malley, et. al., Federal Jury Prac. and Instr. § 45.03 (6th ed.); accord Ninth Cir. Model Criminal Jury Instructions 8.107 (M urder–First Degree); see also United States v. Agofsky, 516 F.3d 280, 282 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2008) (“a killing is ‘premeditated’ when it is the result of planning or deliberation”). 6 The district court also cited Nika’s holding that the Byford instruction for premeditated murder should be applied to cases whose appeals were not final at the time Byford was decided. 198 P.3d at 850. Unless Nika’s 26 BABB V . LOZOWSKY conviction based on a clarification of state law. 531 U.S. at 227. The petitioner in Fiore had been convicted under a Pennsylvania statute that prohibited operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. Id. Although Fiore in fact had a permit, he deviated so far from the permit’s terms that he was found to have violated the statute. Id. at 226–27. After his conviction became final, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that one who deviates from his permit’s terms does not lack a permit and could not be found to be in violation of the statute. Id. at 227. Subsequently, Fiore petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, in part, to decide when or whether the federal Due Process Clause requires the retroactive application of a new interpretation of a state criminal statute. Id. In order to determine if that question was in fact presented, the Supreme Court certified a question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking whether its decision that someone with a permit could not violate the statute prohibiting operating a machine without a permit was a new interpretation (i.e. a change in the law) or a clarification (i.e. a correct statement of the law at the time Fiore’s conviction became final). Id. The Pennsylvania holding was premised on clearly established federal law, it would not form a basis for habeas relief under AEDPA. See Bradley v. Duncan, 315 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that it is a federal due process violation, “not the state law error,” that triggers habeas relief). The fact that the Nevada Supreme Court held in Nika that the Byford instruction should be applied to cases such as Babb’s involving convictions that were not final at the time Byford was decided, is not dispositive under AEDPA because Nevada law is not clearly established federal law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (citing Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) (“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”)). BABB V . LOZOWSKY 27 Supreme Court responded that the interpretation “did not announce a new rule of law” but rather “clarified the plain language of the statute . . . furnish[ing] the proper statement of law at the date Fiore’s conviction became final.” Id. at 228. The Supreme Court held that, given that Pennsylvania’s new ruling was not new law, the question was “simply whether Pennsylvania can, consistently with the federal Due Process Clause, convict Fiore for conduct that its criminal statute, as properly interpreted, does not prohibit.” Id. The Supreme Court held that Fiore’s conviction and continued incarceration violated due process, citing the rule that the State must prove the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 364). Because there had been a clarification in the law, the Supreme Court in Fiore did not decide whether or under what circumstances a change in state law should be applied to invalidate a prior conviction. The Supreme Court did subsequently address this issue, however, in Bunkley. As in Fiore, the Supreme Court in Bunkley considered the impact of a change in the interpretation of a state statute on a conviction. 538 U.S. at 838. The petitioner in Bunkley had been convicted of burglary in the first degree. Bunkley received a life sentence because he was carrying a pocketknife with a 2.5 to 3-inch blade at the time of the crime, which the jury concluded was a deadly weapon. Id. at 836–37. Although the statute created an exception for the “common pocketknife,” the term was undefined. Id. at 837. If the pocketknife exception had applied, Bunkley could only have been convicted of burglary in the third degree, which had a maximum sentence of five years. Id. After Bunkley’s conviction became final, the Florida Supreme Court determined that a knife with a blade of 3.75 inches plainly fell 28 BABB V . LOZOWSKY within the exception. Id. Bunkley sought state habeas relief, but the Florida Supreme Court declined, stating that its ruling was an “evolutionary refinement in the law,” id. at 838, which did not apply retroactively under Florida law. On federal habeas review, the Supreme Court remanded to the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether, at the time Bunkley’s conviction became final in 1989, his 2.5–3 inch pocketknife was a weapon under the law at that stage in its evolution. The Court understood that the Florida ruling represented a change in state law, and noted the importance of when the change occurred. The Supreme Court said that “[i]f Bunkley’s pocketknife fit within the ‘common pocketknife exception [] in 1989 [when his conviction became final], then Bunkley was convicted of a crime for which he cannot be guilty . . . .” Id. at 841 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court thus indicated that failing to apply a potentially exonerating change in the law to a conviction which was not final at the time of the change would have the same effect as failing to apply a clarification of the law; it would permit the state to convict someone without proving the elements of the crime in violation of the Due Process Clause. Id. The rulings in Bunkley and Fiore confirm that the Supreme Court’s holding in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) – that newly declared constitutional rules must be applied to convictions that were not yet final at the time the change occurs – extends to some changes in state law.7 One 7 The Supreme Court has also held that due process requires the retroactive application of substantive changes in federal law that narrow the scope of a criminal statute, and that this even extends to convictions that are final at the time of the change. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. BABB V . LOZOWSKY 29 principle underlying Griffith is that it is a violation of due process to affirm a conviction “when the new ruling was that a trial court lacked authority to convict a criminal defendant in the first place.” 479 U.S. at 324 (citing United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 550 (1982)). This principle would necessarily apply to a change in the definition of the elements of mens rea for first degree murder. “New elements alter the range of conduct the statute punishes, rendering some formerly unlawful conduct lawful or vice versa.” Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 354 (2004). While Griffith alone would not be sufficient to invalidate Babb’s conviction because the change at issue was a change in state law, see Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 955–56 (9th Cir. 2001), Bunkley confirmed that it is a violation of due process not to apply changes in state law to a petitioner’s conviction that was not final at the time the change occurred. 538 U.S. at 841 (“If Bunkley’s pocketknife fit within the ‘common pocketknife’ exception [before his conviction became final], then Bunkley was convicted of a crime for which he cannot be guilty.”). The State argues that Bunkley is merely persuasive authority, because the Supreme Court in that case did not actually hold that due process requires that changes in state law be applied to convictions that are not yet final, but only posed a question to the Florida Supreme Court. We disagree. Bunkley made clear that its remand to the Florida Supreme Court was necessary because the state court had to determine “when the law changed,” 538 U.S. at 842. If the state courts’ 614 (1998). W hether this principle of retroactivity extends to changes in state law is the question that was explicitly left open in both Fiore and Bunkley. 30 BABB V . LOZOWSKY interpretation of an offense had evolved so as to exculpate the defendant of an element of the offense before the defendant’s conviction became final, then the failure to apply state law as it existed at that time would violate the defendant’s due process rights; it would permit the state to convict people of crimes of which they are not guilty under the applicable law. Id. at 840, 841. Thus, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bunkley, it was an unreasonable application of established federal law and a violation of Babb’s due process rights for the Nevada court not to apply the change in Byford, which narrowed the category conduct that can be considered criminal, to her case. Bunkley clarified that Griffith’s holding, requiring new rules to apply to convictions that are not yet final, extends to changes in state law that narrow the category of conduct that can be considered criminal. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407 (2000) (noting that “a state-court decision also involves an unreasonable application of [the Supreme Court’s] precedent if the state court . . . unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply”). Byford, which narrowed the scope of conduct that could qualify as first degree murder by expanding and separating definitions of premeditation, deliberation and willfulness, should be applied to Babb’s conviction, which was not final at the time Byford was decided.