Ernest Lee Ruff v. Larry Kincheloe

843 F.2d 1240 Ernest Lee RUFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry KINCHELOE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 85-4354. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued Aug. 5, 1987. Submitted Aug. 28, 1987. Decided April 8, 1988. David S. Teske, Teske and Associates, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant. John Scott Blonien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Corrections, Olympia, Wash., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Before CANBY, REINHARDT and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 Ernest Ruff, a Washington state prisoner, appeals from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. Ruff claims that three jury instructions tainted his 1975 trial for murder and arson, violating his fourteenth amendment rights. Ruff contends, in addition, that the district court was unable to evaluate his habeas petition properly because the record it relied on was incomplete. 2 Ruff was charged with setting fire to his brother's house by pouring gasoline on the house and lighting it. The fire resulted in the death of the brother's two children. A jury convicted Ruff on two counts of first degree…

Ernest Ruff, a Washington state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Ruff claims that three jury instructions tainted his 1975 trial for murder and arson, violating his fourteenth amendment rights. Ruff contends, in addition, that the district court was unable to evaluate his habeas petition properly because the record it relied on was incomplete.

Ruff was charged with setting fire to his brother’s house by pouring gasoline on the house and lighting it. The fire resulted in the death of the brother’s two children. A jury convicted Ruff on two counts of first degree murder and one count of first degree arson. He is currently serving a prison term of twenty years to life.

Ruff filed, pro se, a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Ruff challenged, among other matters, three jury instructions used in his 1975 trial: first, the instruction that “the law presumes that every man intends the natural and probable consequences of his own acts,” see Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); second, the instruction that “the state is not required to prove to you affirmatively that no ... cause or…

dissenting

I respectfully dissent for two reasons.

First, the majority holds that “before the district court can determine whether the constitutional error in Ruff’s trial was harmless, it must review the entire state court record” (emphasis added). I do not agree that reversal is required here simply because the district court reviewed only the “relevant” evidence and not the “entire record.”

The majority opinion suggests that all habeas cases raising a constitutional claim subject to harmless error analysis must be reversed if the “entire record” has not been reviewed by the district court. For this sweeping proposition, the majority cites United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 , 103 S.Ct. 1974 , 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); and Herd v. Kincheloe, 800 F.2d 1526 (9th Cir.1986). I believe that this proposition is unsupported by prevailing precedent and is unlikely to prove well-conceived.

While both Hastings and Chapman addressed an application of the harmless error doctrine, neither case involved review of an erroneous Sandstrom…