Parle
Parle v. Runnels
Opinion
Opinion
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Because the relevant facts are recited in this court’s prior opinion, Parle v. Runnels, 387 F.3d 1030, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2004) (Parle I), and the district court’s most recent order, Parle v. Runnels, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1160-61 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (Parle III), and are largely uncontested by the parties, we offer only a brief synopsis.
Parle killed his wife, Mary, on December 17, 1993, by stab- bing her in the back during a domestic dispute. By all accounts, Parle and Mary had “a stormy relationship,” punctu- ated by verbal and physical abuse by both parties. Parle I, 387 PARLE v. RUNNELS 13681 F.3d at 1033. At trial, Parle conceded that he unlawfully killed his wife, contesting only his state of mind at the time of the killing. Although Parle contended that his state of mind was such that he could be guilty of no more than second- degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, a jury convicted him of first-degree murder. See Parle III, 448 F. Supp. 2d at 1161.
On direct review, the California Court of Appeal identified numerous, serious errors in the trial proceedings. Specifically, the court of appeal held that the trial court: