Document: Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RAUL LOPEZ, WARDEN v. MARVIN VERNIS SMITH ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 13–946 Decided October 6, 2014 PER CURIAM. When a state prisoner seeks federal habeas relief on the ground that court, in adjudicating claim merits, misapplied law, court may grant only if court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly estab- lished Federal as determined by Supreme Court of United States.” 28 U.S. C. §2254(d)(1). We have emphasized, time and again, Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, prohibits courts appeals from rely- ing their own precedent to conclude particular constitutional principle is “clearly established.” See, e.g., Marshall Rodgers, 569 __, __ (2013) (per curiam) (slip op. at 6). Because Ninth Circuit failed comply with this rule, we reverse its granting respondent Marvin Smith. I Respondent arrested for murder his wife, Minnie On December 15, 2005, Mrs. Smith found dead home she shared respondent, it killed massive blow head fireplace log roller. The appeared been ransacked, valuable jewelry missing. State charged first-degree offered substantial incriminating evidence trial. prosecution presented “was unfaithful wife many years, 2 LOPEZ threatening divorce him, he told one former employees . ‘only way’ would get out marriage ‘to die,’ because ‘not going give [Mrs. Smith] half what [he] got so some other man can live off it.’ ” 731 F.3d 859, 862–863 (CA9 2013) (second alteration original). Respondent’s DNA also weapon, pieces duct tape near body, burned matchstick bedroom used inflict burns body. See id., 863; see People Smith, 2010 WL 4975500, *1–*2 (Cal. App., Dec. 8, 2010). missing discovered trunk re- spondent’s car, wrapped same roll had provided F.3d, 863. trunk. *2. In addition, criminologist testified ransacking Smiths’ staged. defended part basis could not delivered fatal due rotator cuff sur- gery several weeks before murder. ibid. (He mounted defense despite fact police observed him wielding 6-foot-long 4 pry some- thing concrete slab construction site week after *1.) suggested respondent’s committed crime obtain money pay debt owed respondent. At close evidence, requested aiding-and-abetting instruction, trial agreed such instruction. During closing argument, prosecutor contended physically able wield roller but informed jury that, even blow, still be convicted 3 theory. 864. without speci- fying which theory guilt adopted. After series state-court proceedings relevant here, California Appeal affirmed conviction. rejected assertion inadequate notice possibility con- viction ex- plained “ ‘an accusatory pleading charging defend- ant need specify intends rely,’ noted “information defendant compli- ance governing statutes.” *6–*7. Furthermore, held “even case required greater specificity concerning defendant’s liability, preliminary examination it.” Id., *7. upshot “the information exami- nation testimony adequately notified prosecuted aider abettor.” *8. denied petition review. filed States District Central California. Magistrate Judge recommended relief, summarily adopted Judge’s recommendation. affirmed. acknowledged [respondent] first- degree initially sufficient put either principal aider-and-abettor,” under law “aiding abetting substantive offense perpetrating crime.” 868. But nevertheless concluded Sixth Amendment process right violated believed (until quested instruction) tried himself blow. 869. did purport identify any constitutionally because, although apprised against focused potential liability expense another. Rather, instant “indis- tinguishable from” Circuit’s Sheppard Rees, 909 F.2d 1234 (1989), thought “faithfully applied principles enunciated Court.” rejected, “unreasonable determination facts,” §2254(d)(2), Appeal’s conclusion instructions conference conviction 871–872. II A held, does dis- pute, received adequate question therefore whether warranted principally relied Assuming, arguendo, entitled aiding-and- theory, Court’s cases establish defendant, once possibility, deprived 5 prosecutorial focus another pointed no ours holding much. Instead, Ap- peals cited three older stand nothing more than general proposition must charges him. 866–867 (citing Russell States, 369 749, 763–764 (1962); re Oliver, 333 257, 273–274 (1948); Cole Arkansas, 196, 201 (1948)). This far too abstract specific rule needs. cau- tioned lower courts—and particu- lar—against “framing our precedents high level generality.” Nevada Jackson, ___, ___ op., 7). None decisions addresses, remotely, case. Russell, supra, 752 (indictment “refus[ing] answer pertinent [a] [congressional] inquiry,” §192, “identify subject congressional subcommittee inquiry”); 259 (instantaneous indictment, conviction, sentence judge acting grand prior charge defendant); Cole, 197 (affirmance criminal convictions “under statute violation [defendants] charged”).1 legal —————— claims Lankford Idaho, 500 (1991), Circuit, establishes help That addressed imposition death penalty—a different liability. 111. Lankford, moreover, itself made statements encouraged believe penalty table. 116–117. 6 needed forced rely heavily deci- sion Sheppard, supra. Of course, AEDPA permits law” Court, appeals. attempted evade barrier Russell.” cannot “refine sharpen jurispru- dence into has announced.” Marshall, S., irrelevant case: pros- ecutor’s render earlier inadequate. B disagreed termed “determination facts”—principally, prosecutors’ request instruction shortly arguments prosecution’s 871 (internal quotation marks omitted). granted where “decision based facts light proceeding.” sustained. purporting reject investigator about conversa- 7 tions between cellmate. According investigator, cellmate stated “had rid standing way future plans; wasn’t up property”; house look like invasion robbery; when left work morning murder, win- dow open set alarm. ‘know details homicide how carried out,’ ‘never [the cellmate] specifically who’ homicide. Ibid. these statements, taken together, respond- ent planning facilitating might ac- complice. Thus, assuming sufficient, naturally lent gave possibility. conference, occurred rested parties’ arguments. confer- ence, prosecutors in- struction, further distinguishable 1234, unlike case, here occur immediately disagreed, “defense counsel lunch recess formulate response” “is indistin- guishable Sheppard,” “requested new day closing.” 8 868, 870. Although claimed disagreement factual nature, reality adequacy provided. be- lieved events detailed above, together measure standard applicable this. ranked governed §2254(d)(1), §2254(d)(2). But, explained, establishing appropri- ate standard. Absent establish- standard, assess, deem lacking, afforded proceedings. It assess- ment pos- sibility theory.2 writ certiorari granted. judgment Appeals reversed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. foregoing grounds, opine correctness discussion Griffin 502 46 Brecht Abraham- son, 507 619 (1993).

Category: 0