Court Opinion

ID: 9496136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:18:50.999795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:49.389952
License: Public Domain

HUG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The Supreme Court recently emphasized and refined the standard under which we review a petition for habeas corpus from a state court conviction. Lockyer v. Andrade, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). The Court noted that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (AEDPA) circumscribes a federal habeas court’s review of a state-court decision. Section 2254(d) provides:
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Court stated, “[W]e first decide what constitutes ‘clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1172. The Court further stated that “under the unreasonable application clause the federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this court’s decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the fact of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 1174. (quoting from Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495). The Court noted that it is not enough that the federal court is left with a firm conviction that the state court was incorrect or erroneous. Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable. Id. at 1175. Furthermore, the Court observed that a finding of clear error is not enough to meet the objectively unreasonable standard. “Under Section 2254(d)(l)’s ‘unreasonable application clause,’ ..., a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-*597court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495).
In this case, we have a trial judge who gave a correct instruction defining second degree murder. The judge had given an earlier instruction stating that general intent is required for second degree murder. If this were the only instruction given defining second degree murder, I would agree that an important element was left out. But it was not the only instruction, because a later instruction was given that correctly stated all of the elements. Thus, the most that was done by the first instruction was to create ambiguity.1 An-drade states “as a threshold matter we first decide what constitutes ‘clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” Andrade, 123 S.Ct. at 1172. The majority opinion sets forth the clearly established Federal law for an ambiguous instruction as “whether considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution,” citing Estelle2 and Boyde.3
The trial judge correctly instructed on the elements of second degree murder in the oral instructions, and in the written instructions that were sent to the jury room. The issue before the California Court of Appeal was whether the earlier instruction concerning general criminal intent created such ambiguity in the minds of the jurors as to require reversal. The California Court of Appeal stated:
All the standard instructions were given on first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, reasonable self-defense and unreasonable self-defense.
The Court of Appeal then cited those particular instructions that were given by the trial court. The Court of Appeal further stated:
Having ascertained the relevant law, the question before us becomes whether there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the jury properly understood such law and were the points appellant sought to make at trial adequately covered. “In resolving such question we look to the evidence, instructions and arguments of counsel.”
(citations omitted). The Court of Appeal then stated:
Regarding general intent, the jury was initially instructed: “In the crime charged, murder in the second degree based on implied malice, this instruction applies.[K] There must exist a union or joint operation of act or conduct and general intent. [¶] That applies only to murder in the second degree based on the theory of implied malice, and I’ll write that down in the form for you. [¶] ... [¶] In the crime of murder in the second degree, the necessary mental state is malice.” (Ellipsis and paragraph designations in original.)
The Court of Appeal then noted that, after discussion with counsel outside the presence of the jury, the general intent instruction was modified to specify that it applied *598only to involuntary manslaughter and that the written instructions given to the jury so indicated.
After giving the instructions for first degree murder the trial court gave the following instructions concerning the elements of second degree murder.
Murder of the second degree is also the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought when there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill a human being but the evidence is insufficient to establish deliberation and premeditation.
Murder of the second degree is also the unlawful killing of a human being when:
One, the killing resulted from an intentional act;
Two, the natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life; and
Three, the act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to and with conscious disregard for human life.
The trial court then gave the instructions concerning the specific elements of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
As the Court of Appeal noted, the attorneys for the prosecution and the defense argued the case in terms of these instructions. The prosecutor never argued that the defendant could be found guilty based only on a finding of general intent.
At most the early instruction on general intent, that the majority believes requires a reversal, could only have created some ambiguity concerning the elements of second degree murder that were clearly spelled out in the later instructions. It was never stated that general intent was the only element that need be proved.
The Court of Appeal concluded that “The necessary mental states were fully defined and general intent was effectively limited to involuntary manslaughter.” It is significant that both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney believed this to be true because no further modification of the instructions was requested.
I fail to see how the California court’s conclusion is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court for several reasons:'
1. The instructions read as a whole correctly instructed on the elements of second degree murder.
2. The court clarified the general intent instruction in the written instructions sent to the jury.
3. The attorneys sought no further correction of the instructions as given.
4. The attorneys argued the case on the correct definition of second degree murder. There was no contention that only general intent was required.
5. If the jury were to look at the written instructions there was no doubt about the elements for second degree murder.
The major defect in the majority opinion is that it looks at the general intent instruction as though it was the only instruction given on second degree murder and that it omitted an important element, thus evoking the Sandstrom standard.4 It was not the only instruction on second degree murder. The jury was correctly instructed on the elements of second degree murder in the section of the instructions that defined all possible offenses that could be found. As a practical matter, that is where the jury would turn to decide which offense or degree is applicable — not look back to an *599instruction never mentioned in argument. Furthermore, if the jury were to look back to that earlier instruction as it was submitted to the jury in writing, it would see that the instruction did not apply to second degree murder.
Judge Illston, in reviewing this petition in the district court, correctly analyzed this case under AEDPA, appropriately applying the deference that is due to the state court determination, as follows:
This Court finds the Court of Appeal’s determination did not result in a decision that is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, nor did it result in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at trial. To obtain federal collateral relief for errors in the jury charge, petitioner must show that the ailing instruction so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). In reviewing an ambiguous instruction, the court must consider the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record, and determine whether there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72 n. 4, 112 S.Ct. 475; Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990). If so, the court must then decide whether the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict before granting relief in habeas proceedings. See Calderon v. Coleman, 525 U.S. 141, 145, 119 S.Ct. 500, 503, 142 L.Ed.2d 521 (1998); Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1722, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). This standard is met if the record on collateral review leaves the judge in “grave doubt” as to the effect of the constitutional error. See O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 436, 115 S.Ct. 992, 994, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995).
Considering the instructions as a whole, this Court cannot say that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution. See Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72 n. 4, 112 S.Ct. 475. Moreover, even assuming that the jury did apply the erroneous instruction, in light of the theories of the parties and the evidence introduced, this Court agrees with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion and cannot say that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. See Calderon, 525 U.S. at 145, 119 S.Ct. 500.
I agree with the district court that the Court of Appeal did not err, and that its decision under our standard of review was certainly not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I would therefore affirm the decision of the district court denying the petition for habeas corpus.

.Furthermore, with the correct instruction having been given I think the first instruction was not really erroneous. It did not say that only general intent was required. Actually, general intent is required for second degree murder, but that offense also requires specific intent.

. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

. Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990).

. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).