Brian Randell v. Thomas Carey

MEMORANDUM

Brian K. Randell contends that the jury instructions given by the trial court violated his right to due process because they precluded the jury from considering whether he acted in self-defense. Randell identifies two instructions, in particular, that allegedly had that effect: (1) the instruction stating that a defendant may claim self-defense if he actually and reasonably believed that “the individual killed intended to commit a forcible and atrocious crime” against him, and (2) the instruction stating that a defendant may claim self-defense when “there is imminent danger that the other person” will cause him great bodily injury. We agree that the trial court erred in giving these instructions on the facts of this case.

To prevail, however, Randell must show that the erroneous instructions “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). The California Court of Appeal held that no such infection occurred. We cannot say that the court’s ruling was objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Middleton v. McNeil, 541…