Court Opinion

ID: 9471230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:27:31.311586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:19.193049
License: Public Domain

*1537GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Chief Judge.
Appellant Melvin Bay Guyon appeals from Ms conviction by a jury for first degree murder of an FBI agent. Guyon was sentenced to life imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1114 (1976). At the opening of the trial, the United States had stipulated that it would not ask the death penalty if Guyon was convicted of first degree murder.
Many of the facts in this case are undisputed. The FBI agent who was killed was Johnnie Oliver. He was one of six FBI agents who went to a house in Cleveland on August 9, 1979, with the federal fugitive arrest warrant in their possession for Guy-on’s arrest.
The following background facts were also stipulated by the parties at the beginning of the trial. In March of 1978 Guyon was indicted on two felony charges in Cleveland, Ohio. He was arraigned and released on bond. When he failed to appear for arraignment, an Ohio warrant for his arrest was issued and remained in effect until August 9, 1978. In the fall of 1978, three other felony warrants for the arrest of Guy-on were issued by the state of Illinois and subsequent thereto on November 1, 1978 a federal unlawful flight warrant was issued by a U.S. Magistrate in the Northern District of Illinois and turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This warrant was in effect on August 9, 1978.
While the stipulations do not specifically detail Guyon’s movements, the facts at trial showed without dispute that he left Ohio for Chicago, Illinois after the Ohio felony warrants and remained there until after the three Illinois felony warrants for his arrest were issued in Chicago. He thereafter reappeared in the neighborhood of Cleveland, Ohio where he had previously lived.
Cleveland agents gained information that Guyon was staying in an apartment occupied by one Katherine Little and her and Guyon’s two small children. Prior to the FBI agents’ entrance into the apartment on August 9, the FBI agents had told Little that the FBI was “looking for” Guyon. FBI agents had given a similar message to Guyon’s mother and to his sister, and to his employer. The jury heard testimony that at least two of these had passed on this message to Guyon. The FBI agents also knew that Guyon constantly went armed— sometimes with two pistols.
Guyon had previously lived with Little. On his return to Cleveland from Chicago, he had discovered that one, Preston Mathis, was living with Katherine Little. After a confrontation between Guyon and Mathis, Mathis had informed the FBI that Guyon was staying at Little’s apartment. When the agents approached the apartment door, (which was metal and had a peephole in it), they asked Mathis to get Little to open the door. This he agreed to do. It appears that within the apartment, Guyon first came to the door and saw Mathis through the peephole. He then told Little to go to the door, but not to tell Mathis that he, Guyon, was there, and Guyon retreated to a back room where the two children were. Mathis told Little he had some money for her and she opened the door, whereupon the FBI agents, standing nearby, shoved the door open and rushed in. Agents testified that they called out “FBI, FBI” as they entered.
Agent Oliver, with a shotgun in his hand led the charge. He met Guyon in the hallway. Guyon fired and mortally wounded agent Oliver by a shot through the heart. Oliver’s shotgun shot did not hit Guyon. A number of shotgun and pistol shots were then fired in Guyon’s direction, but he escaped by diving through a window and running away through a hail of gunfire. He first found refuge at his brother’s house. Jessie Washington, the brother’s wife, testified she met Guyon on the porch. Asked about conversation “at that point” she replied: “Well, all he said he had shot the FBI; he had shot the FBI and he shot back, and that was all.” Guyon subsequently made his way by bicycle to Youngstown, Ohio, where, after another FBI encounter in which he again escaped under gunfire, he was arrested in a hospital.
*1538The most important disputes of fact before the jury were whether or not the FBI agents announced who they were before the shooting started, and who fired first. As to the first issue (as noted above), agents on the scene testified that as they entered the door, they were calling out “FBI.” In addition, Katherine Little had testified before the Grand Jury that she heard someone say, “All right, Melvin, we are the FBI. We know you are in there; come on out.” At trial, however, while she admitted signing a statement to this effect, she sought to disavow it, contending that she had signed it under pressure. Guyon denied hearing the FBI identification. An FBI agent, however, testified that he heard Johnnie Oliver call out the same words testified to by Little before the grand jury. There was also FBI testimony that Guyon subsequent to his arrest stated that he knew the FBI and the police were looking for him.
Guyon took the witness stand in his own defense and testified concerning the shooting of Agent Oliver: “He shot at me and I shot at him.” Guyon’s bullet went through Oliver’s heart and lungs, causing his death. FBI agent Stiller testified that shortly after Guyon’s arrest, Guyon gave him a statement in which he “did mention that as he was bringing the weapon up to shoot Oliver, that he thought Preston must have some very heavy friends to have a white guy here after him.”
As to the question of who shot first, in addition to Guyon’s statement, there was testimony from two FBI agents that they heard a shot from a small calibre weapon and immediately thereafter a shotgun blast and then a number of shots following thereafter. In the light of the District Judge’s charge (which we quote below), the jury in returning its first degree murder verdict obviously resolved these fact disputes in favor of the prosecution.
Appellant’s brief presents four stated issues — the most important of which we will deal with last. That issue concerns the District Judge’s failure to charge upon a manslaughter verdict as requested by Guy-on’s counsel.
Turning to the first stated issue, a claim of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3109, it reads as follows:
§ 3109. Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.
While in its exact language this provision appears to apply to the execution of search warrants, it has also been held to apply to arrest by federal officers for violation of federal law. See Sabbath v. United States, 380 F.2d 108 (9th Cir.1967), rev’d on other grounds, 391 U.S. 585, 88 S.Ct. 1755, 20 L.Ed.2d 828 (1968); United States v. Murrio, 534 F.2d 695, 697 (6th Cir.1976).
Appellant’s contention is that the agents’ failure to state authority and purpose before entering violated this statute and hence rendered their conduct both unlawful and unauthorized.
It is the government’s claim that the exigent circumstances of this ease, namely, that Guyon was known to be a fugitive from justice who was the subject of a federal fugitive arrest warrant, who knew that the FBI was looking for him and who was armed and dangerous, justified their entrance into Katherine Little’s apartment by ruse and the force which was employed. The government points to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), where the Court recognized that exigent circumstances might excuse failure to follow the letter of § 3109, if announcement of identity and purpose prior to their entrance would unreasonably imperil the lives of the agents concerned. The government further maintains that whether or not the agents were in technical compliance with this statute, they were still engaged in the performance of their official duties, as set forth in Title 18, § 1114. See *1539also Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981).
We find in the record of this case exigent circumstances which would excuse the entry as made. We also point out that there was testimony from which the jury could have concluded, as it apparently did, that the FBI agents did announce their presence and further that appellant knew who they were. We agree with plaintiff-appellee that the FBI agents who entered the Little apartment were clearly and solely in the performance of their official duties and that under the circumstances their entrance was lawful.
Appellant’s second stated issue is that the District Judge gave a fatally erroneous charge on intent and malice. The District Judge’s charge in this respect was taken from 1 Devitt And Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice And Instructions (3d Ed. 1977) § 14.13, as follows:
Intent ordinarily may not be proved directly, because there is no way of fathoming or scrutinizing the operations of the human mind. But you may infer the defendant’s intent from the surrounding circumstances. You may consider any statement made by the defendant, and all other facts and circumstances in evidence which indicate his state of mind.
You may consider it reasonable to draw the inference and find that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted. As I have said, it is entirely up to you to decide that facts to find from the evidence.
This charge makes clear that the jury may “infer” intent from a defendant’s acts but it includes no presumption in this regard. This charge has been approved by this and other courts. United States v. Gaines, 594 F.2d 541 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2888, 61 L.Ed.2d 314 (1979).
Appellant’s third contention may be phrased as follows: deliberate and premeditated murder is not sufficiently shown by evidence in this record. In support of this proposition, appellant argues the evidence favorable to the defendant and largely ignores the facts favorable to the prosecution’s case. These latter facts obviously persuaded the jury to its verdict and on reviewing that verdict, we are required to review the facts from the point of view favorable to the government which was accepted by the jury. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 124, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2911, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Luxenberg, 374 F.2d 241 (6th Cir.1967).
On such a view of the evidence appellant knew he “was in trouble” and had been informed that the FBI was “looking for him.” He did not contact that organization after receiving such notice. On the contrary, he armed himself and carried a loaded pistol (sometimes two). When actually confronted by the FBI, he used the pistol to escape from capture by killing an FBI agent. At his brother’s house, the first place of refuge that appellant found after his escape, he told his brother’s wife, “I shot the FBI.” We believe these facts plus the many facts pertaining to appellant’s status as a fugitive from felony warrants in two states, the evidence from several sources concerning his constant possession of weapons, demonstrated a predetermination on appellant’s part to resist capture by deadly force. While the confrontation itself was doubtless a matter of seconds, appellant’s preparation to resist with deadly force was equally obviously a matter of months.
This analysis of facts which serves as direct support for the first degree murder verdict also forms the background for our consideration of appellant’s fourth issue. Appellant argues with vigor that at trial the District Judge was asked to charge upon manslaughter as an offense, included in first degree murder, which should have provided a fourth option to the jury and that his failure to grant this request requires our vacation of his sentence and a new trial. See Stevenson v. United States, 162 U.S. 313, 16 S.Ct. 839, 40 L.Ed. 980 (1896); Kinard v. United States, 96 F.2d 522 *1540(D.C.1938). Cf. Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973) (right to charge on lesser included offense); Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965) (same).
The federal statutes applicable to this appeal are as follows:
§ 1111. Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree, shall suffer death unless the jury qualifies its verdict by adding thereto “without capital punishment”, in which event he shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 756.
§ 1112. Manslaughter
(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:
Voluntary — Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
Involuntary — In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years;
Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 756.
§ 1114. Protection of officers and employees of the United States
Whoever kills any judge of the United States, any United States Attorney, any Assistant United States Attorney, or any United States marshal or deputy marshal or person employed to assist such marshal or deputy marshal, any officer or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice, * * * while engaged in the performance of his official duties, or on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be punished as provided under sections 1111 and 1112 of this title. June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 756; May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 24, 63 Stat. 93; Oct. 31, 1951, c. 655, § 28, 65 Stat. 721; June 27, 1952, c. 477, Title IV, § 402(c), 66 Stat. 276; July 29, 1958, Pub.L. 85-568, Title III, § 304(d), 72 Stat. 434; July 2, 1962, Pub.L. 87-518, § 10, 76 Stat. 132; Aug. 27, 1964, Pub.L. 88-493, § 3, 78 Stat. 610; July 15, 1965, Pub.L. 89-74, § 8(b), 79 Stat. 234.
The District Judge, of course, charged on first degree murder and its requirement of premeditation. He also charged upon second degree murder, telling the jury that in order to render that verdict, it must find intentional killing with malice which did not involve the key element of premeditation. His charge was some seventy pages in length, and as we see it, fully informed the jury of its right to return one of three verdicts: guilty of murder in the first degree, guilty of murder in the second degree and not guilty.
Where the jury, with these choices before it, chose a first degree murder verdict rather than a verdict of murder in the second degree, it had first to decide that on the facts before it, the killing was premeditated. This jury verdict must be read as re*1541jecting a second degree murder verdict. Moreover, that determination would, even more conclusively, have prevented the jury from returning a manslaughter verdict.
Appellant’s actual defense at this trial, however, was not that he was guilty of manslaughter rather than of murder, it was that on the date in question he did not commit any crime. His testimony was that he was acting in self defense, as he had a right to do, in resisting an attack by armed men whom he believed had been recruited by Preston Mathis, his rival for Katherine Little’s affections. His testimony at trial clearly presented this theory to the jury. The trial judge’s full and complete charge on self defense was as follows:
“If you find that the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the first two essential elements of the offense of first degree murder, that the defendant acted unlawfully and with malice aforethought, but that the Government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt the third essential element, that the defendant acted with premeditation, then you must find him guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. On the other hand, if you find that the Government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt either or both of the first two essential elements, then you must find the defendant not guilty of second degree murder.
If it is shown that the defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of a homicide, then you may find, from the use of such weapon, in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances, the existence of the malice which is an essential element of the offense. You are not obliged so to find, however. You may not find the defendant guilty unless you are satisfied that the Government has established every essential element of the offense, as explained in this charge, beyond reasonable doubt.
A gun, as a matter of law, is a deadly weapon.
If the defendant was not the aggressor, and had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force against his assailant, he had the right to employ deadly force in order to defend himself. By ‘deadly force’ is meant force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.
In order for the defendant to have been justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense, he must not have provoked the assault on him or have been the aggressor. Mere words without more, do not constitute provocation or aggression.
The circumstances under which he acted must have been such as to produce in the mind of a reasonably prudent person, similarly situated, the reasonable belief that the other person was then about to kill him or to do him serious bodily harm. In addition, the defendant must have actually believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force must be used to repel it.
To determine if a defendant believes he was in imminent danger and had reasonable grounds to believe he was, you should put yourself in the place of the defendant. Consider the conduct of Johnnie Oliver and determine if what he did caused the defendant to reasonably and honestly believe he was about to be killed or to receive great bodily harm.
If evidence of self-defense is present, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. If you find that the Government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty. In other words, if you have a reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense, your verdict must be not guilty as to both first degree murder and the lesser included offense of second degree murder.
If the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to repel such danger, he would be justified in using deadly force in self-defense, even though it may *1542afterwards have turned out that the appearances were false. If these requirements are met he could use deadly force even though there was in fact neither purpose on the part of the other person to kill him or do him serious bodily harm, nor imminent danger that it would be done, nor actual necessity that deadly force be used in self-defense.
If the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to repel such danger, he was not required to retreat or to consider whether he could safely retreat. He was entitled to stand his ground and use such force as was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to save his life or protect himself from serious bodily harm.
However, if the defendant could have safely retreated but did not do so, his failure to retreat is a circumstance which you may consider, together with all other circumstances, in determining whether he went farther in repelling the danger, real or apparent, than he was justified in doing under the circumstances.
Even if the other person was the aggressor and the defendant was justified in using force in self-defense, he would not be entitled to use any greater force than he had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe to be necessary under the circumstances to save his life or avert serious bodily harm.
In determining whether the defendant used excessive force in defending himself, you may consider all the circumstances under which he acted. The claim of self-defense is not necessarily defeated if greater force than would have seemed necessary in cold blood was used by the defendant in the heat of passion generated by an assault upon him. A belief which may be unreasonable in cold blood may be actually and reasonably entertained in the heat of passion.
You must distinguish resisting arrest from self-defense. If you find that the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew before he acted that Johnnie Oliver was a law-enforcement officer who intended to arrest him and that the defendant acted to avoid arrest, you may not acquit the defendant by reason of self-defense.
You must, therefore, consider whether Johnnie L. Oliver and the other FBI agents caused the defendant to reasonably and honestly believe that he was about to be killed or receive great bodily harm, or if their conduct caused him to believe that he was about to be arrested according to lawful means.
As I previously instructed you, if evidence of self-defense is present, the Government must prove by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
There is nothing peculiarly different in the way a jury should consider the evidence in a criminal case from that in which all reasonable persons treat any question depending upon evidence presented to them. You are expected to use your good sense to consider the evidence in the case for only those purposes for which it has been admitted, and give it a reasonable and fair construction, in the light of your common knowledge of the natural tendencies and inclinations of human beings.
If the accused be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If not so proved guilty, say so.
Keep constantly in mind that it would be a violation of your sworn and solemn duty to base a verdict of guilty upon anything other than the evidence in the case; and remember as well that the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.”
This charge clearly gave the jury the right and the duty to find him, Guyon, not guilty if the members of the jury believed him.
The jury, however, plainly did not believe appellant’s story. The jury’s first degree murder verdict must be read as a jury *1543finding of premeditation and malice and a rejection of any “heat of passion” theory.
While what has been said above we believe responds to appellant’s first three stated issues, we have not spoken the final word on appellant’s fourth argument which he phrases:
In a murder prosecution, where there is evidence which, if believed by the jury, would reduce the crime to manslaughter, an instruction defining that crime must be given to the jury — particularly if requested. .. .
In dealing with this issue, we, of course, are not privileged to choose between disputed issues of fact on the basis of testimony which we regard as convincing nor may we rely on deductions from the jury’s verdict since it is appellant’s contention that the jury should have had (but didn’t) the choice of a manslaughter verdict. Indeed, there are Supreme Court cases treating charges of felonious killing which seem to favor inclusion in the judge’s instructions of any lesser arguably included offense as a permissible verdict under a proper charge. In Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973), the Court held that an Indian convicted of assault with intent to commit serious bodily injury on an Indian reservation was entitled to a new trial because the trial court had refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault.
In the majority opinion Mr. Justice Brennan said:
Although the lesser included offense doctrine developed at common law to assist the prosecution in cases where the evidence failed to establish some element of the offense originally charged,5 it is now beyond dispute that the defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find him guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure deal with lesser included offenses, see Rule 31(c),6 and the defendant’s right to such an instruction has been recognized in numerous decisions of this Court. See, e.g., Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 349, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 1009, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965); Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131, 134, 76 S.Ct. 685, 687, 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956); Stevenson v. United States, 162 U.S. 313, 16 S.Ct. 839, 40 L.Ed. 980 (1896).7
In defending the trial court’s refusal to offer the requested instruction, the Government does not dispute this general proposition, nor does it argue that a lesser offense instruction was incompatible with the evidence presented at trial. Cf. Sansone v. United States, supra; Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 63-64, 15 S.Ct. 273, 277-279, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895). On the contrary, the Government explicitly concedes that any non-Indian who had committed this same act on this same reservation and requested this same instruction would have been entitled to the jury charge that petitioner was refused.
We find it difficult to say that Guyon’s claim that he killed agent Oliver because he mistook him for someone recruited by Mathis in Mathis’ pursuance of their quarrel can be disregarded as a matter of law. The arguably applicable statutory definition of manslaughter is that of “voluntary” manslaughter. This is defined in the statute (§ 1112) as “upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” Under the facts of this case “heat of passion” could include the passion of fear. We recognize, as pointed out above, that Guyon claims he was con*1544fronted by a sudden assault which he believed was in pursuance of Mathis’ private quarrel with him over Katherine Little. Under this circumstance, we believe the District Judge would have been well advised to have charged on the crime of manslaughter.
Before concluding, however, that what we have said above necessarily means a remand for a new trial in this case, we must consider the government’s contention that if there was error, it was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). See also Krzeminski v. Perini, 614 F.2d 121 (6th Cir.1980).
The facts to which we have previously referred, namely, the multiplicity of criminal charges pending against Guyon in Ohio and Illinois, his flight from the Ohio charges to Illinois, and his subsequent flight from Illinois to Ohio, his constantly going armed, his failure to surrender to the FBI summonses, his statement to his brother’s wife at the first point of refuge that he reached after he killed Oliver, “I shot the FBI and he shot at me,” plus the fact that Oliver was engaged solely in the performance of his sworn duty all serve to convince this court that this case is a proper candidate for decision under the harmless error rule.
On May 23, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States again revisited the harmless error rule saying:
Since Chapman, the Court has consistently made clear that it is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations, see, e.g., Brown [v. United States], supra, 411 U.S. [223] at 230-232 [93 S.Ct. 1565 at 1569-1570, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973)]; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 [89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284] (1969); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 [92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1] (1972).
United States v. Hastings, — U.S. —, —, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1980, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983).
We are acutely conscious of the anomaly of employing the harmless error rule to affirm a conviction which has resulted in a life sentence. We employ that rule only because we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this case might be repeatedly retried with the manslaughter option available to the jury without a manslaughter verdict ever resulting. We do not think any jury would ignore appellant’s culpability in occasioning the fatal confrontation or his preparation for the resulting lethal exchange.
THE DISSENT
The dissent in this case quotes a great deal of undisputed law in order to reiterate the conclusion previously reached by the majority that “the District Judge would have been well advised to have charged on the crime of manslaughter.” It does not respond at all effectively to the government’s alternative claim and the majority opinion result that if the omission of a manslaughter charge was error under the facts of this case, the error was harmless “beyond reasonable doubt” under the doctrine of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
The dissent really represents an argument that in any criminal case failure to charge upon any and all conceivably included offenses represents reversible error as a matter of law, and thus that the reviewing court cannot consider the Chapman doctrine. As we have pointed out above, however, the Supreme Court has very recently instructed again “it is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations.” United States v. Hastings, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983).
It may well be that the Chapman doctrine does create contradictions in legal theory by requiring the courts to define error and yet not always reward such a finding with a new trial. The Chapman and Hastings cases, however, require a quite practi*1545cal consideration of when a new trial may be ordered.
We do not think any jury would ignore appellant’s culpability in occasioning this fatal confrontation. The uncontroverted record of appellant’s flight from five felony charges in two states, his long-standing preparation for armed resistance to arrest, his failure to respond to the FBI’s repeated warnings to him to surrender are in our judgment undisputed facts which would prevent any jury from finding this killing was unpremeditated and without malice.
We agree with the dissent that absent the failure to charge on manslaughter “the trial judge conducted a very careful and fair trial”; but we also hold that any error in this record was of a technical nature and harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

 See Kelly v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 207, 370 F.2d 227, 229 (1966); United States v. Markis, 352 F.2d 860, 866 (CA2 1965); 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure — Criminal § 515, p. 372 (1969).

 Rule 31(c) provides that “[t]he defendant may be found guilty of an offense necessarily included in the offense charged or of an attempt to commit either the offense charged or an offense necessarily included therein if the attempt is an offense.” The rule codified preexisting law, in particular former § 565 of Tit. 18, Act of June 1, 1982, § 9, 17 Stat. 198. See Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131, 134 and n. 6, 76 S.Ct. 685, 688 and n. 6, 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956).

 See also, e.g., Government of Virgin Islands v. Carmona, 422 F.2d 95, 100 (CA3 1970); United States v. Comer, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 214, 218, 421 F.2d 1149, 1153 (1970).