Document: 519 U.S. 2117 S.Ct. 337136 L.Ed.2d 266 CALIFORNIA et al.,v.Kenneth Duane ROY. No. 95-2025. Supreme Court of the United States Decided Nov. 4, 1996. PER CURIAM. 1 A California court convicted respondent Kenneth Roy robbery and first-degree murder Archie Mannix. The State's theory, insofar as is relevant here, was that Roy, coming to aid a confederate who trying rob Mannix, helped kill trial judge gave jury an instruction permitted it convict long concluded (among other things) ''with knowledge of'' confederate's ''unlawful purpose'' (robbery), had confederate, i.e., ''aid[ed],'' ''promote[d],'' ''encourage[d],'' or ''instigate[d]'' by ''act advice commission crime. later held in People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547, 561, 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 68-69, 674 P.2d 1318, 1326 (1984), identical erroneous because what did not say, namely state law also required find ''knowledge [and] intent purpose committing, encouraging, facilitating'' Id., at Cal.Rptr., P.2d, (emphasis added). Despite this error, Appeal affirmed Roy's conviction found error ''harmless beyond reasonable doubt.'' See Chapman California, 386 18, 24, 87 824, 828, 17 705 (1967). denied post-conviction relief. 2 Subsequently pointing same instructional asked Federal District issue writ habeas corpus. request because, its view, harmless. Indeed, wrote no rational juror could have knew him but intend help him. divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. Gomez, 55 F.3d 1483 (1995). 3 heard case en banc reversed district court. It 81 863 (1996). In doing so, majority applied special error'' standard, which believed combined aspects our decisions Carella 491 263, 109 2419, 105 218 (1989), O'Neal McAninch, 513 ----, 115 992, 130 947 described standard follows: 4 ''[T]he omission harmless only if review facts establishes necessarily omitted element.'' F.3d, 867 original). 5 As we understand statement context, meant 6 [of ''intent'' part instruction] [namely, assistance knowledge] established element ''intent''].'' Ibid. 7 State seeking certiorari, argues definition far too strict Court's require application significantly less cases on collateral review. Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619, 113 1710, 123 353 (1993); O'Neal, supra. 8 We believe State, dissenting judges Circuit, are correct about proper standard. drew primarily from concurring opinion Carella, supra, dealt with legal presumptions. concurrence set out views several Justices way determine whether respect use presumption ''harmless.'' Subsequent however, federal reviewing de termination corpus proceeding, ordinarily should apply previously enunciated Kotteakos States, 328 750, 66 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), ''whether 'had substantial injurious effect influence determining jury's verdict.' '' Brecht, 637, S.Ct., 1722 (citing 776, 1253, (1946)). recognized 'structural defects constitution mechanism, defy analysis ''harmless-error'' standards,' U.S., 629, 1717, called ''trial errors,'' including errors Constitution requires courts stricter, -type when they directly. 638, 1722. added where judge, applying ''is grave doubt harmlessness error,'' ''petitioner must win.'' 995. 9 before us for O'Neal. This has written ''constitutional sort ''structural subject analysis. Arizona Fulminante, 499 279, 306-307, 111 1246, 1262-64, 302 (1991). harmless-error variety, Chapman, 828. specific here-an defined crime-is, itself recognized, easily characterized ''misdescription element'' crime, ''omission.'' 867, n. 4. No one claims here ''structural'' 'def[ies] standards.' 1717. advanced while certainly consistent does not, overcome holding followed reasons related function courts, those such (error may direct appeal) under Thus, convinced standards opinions without Circuit's modification. 10 For these reasons, grant respondent's motion leave proceed forma pauperis petition vacate determination, remand further proceedings opinion. 11 so ordered. 12 Justice SCALIA, whom GINSBURG joins Part I, concurring. 13 * I agree decides per curiam opinion: Brecht-O'Neal reversal (''grave error'') rather than more stringent (inability doubt'') applies presented, appeal, grounds deferential therefore concur remand. 14 do opinion, address question constitutes deferen tial applied-and point quite correct. Sullivan Louisiana, 508 275, 2078, 124 182 (1993), criminal defendant constitutionally entitled verdict he guilty absent be reversed, ''no matter how inescapable findings support might be.'' 2082. crime means, course, each necessary Gaudin, 515 ---- - 2310, 2319-20, 132 444 Formally, least, exist here: never ''intent his (1984). 15 absence formal can rendered fact that, given evidence, would otherwise. To allow cured fashion dispense jury. ''The Sixth Amendment appellate speculation hypothetical action, else directed verdicts sustainable appeal; actual finding guilty.'' Sullivan, 280, present points effectively embraces impossible, upon well. 271, 2423-24, (1989) (SCALIA, J., concurring). there ''grave doubt'' (what did) impossible ''be certain'' 863, Elsewhere purported stating ''[w]hen unable conclude instructions,'' ''can 'in error,' 868 (quoting 994-95, (1995)). That seems me impart determination black-and-white character possess, any determinations possess it. ''the better view,'' ''certain,'' record, x y. What means arguable, sustained. II 16 One final point: write rejected traditional view relief discretionary. Withrow Williams, 680, 720, 1745, 1768-69, 407 (1993) part). But precedent, content state-court been opportunity litigate before, doubt, facts, guilty. ibid.

Category: 0