Court Opinion

ID: 9490076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:32:06.331122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:53.088011
License: Public Domain

ORDER
In California v. Roy, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 337, 136 L.Ed.2d 266 (1996), the United States Supreme Court reversed this court’s en bane decision, Roy v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 863 (1996), and held that “the State, and the dissenting judges in the Ninth Circuit, are correct about the proper standard” of collateral review. Roy, — U.S. at-¡ 117 S.Ct. at 338. The Court was “convinced that the ‘harmless error’ standards enunciated in Brecht [v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)] and O’Neal [v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995) ] should apply to the ‘trial error’ before us as enunciated in those opinions and without the Ninth Circuit’s modification.” Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 339. We therefore withdraw our prior en banc majority opinion.
On remand from the Court, we must determine if the erroneous jury instruction in this case “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637, 113 S.Ct. at 1722, quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1253, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). We adopt the analysis, reasoning, and conclusions stated in the dissent to our en banc decision in Roy, 81 F.3d at 870-71. We hold that the erroneous jury instruction in this ease neither substantially nor injuriously influenced the jury’s verdict, and was thus harmless under Brecht and O’Neal.
AFFIRMED.