Geoffrey Brown v. James Tilton

MEMORANDUM

Geoffrey Brown (“Brown”) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. We consider on appeal whether Brown was prejudiced by a single erroneous jury instruction stating that murder is a general intent crime.

On habeas review, where a constitutional error is found, “a court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the ‘substantial and injurious effect’ standard set forth in Brecht .... ” Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 121 , 127 S.Ct. 2321 , 168 L.Ed.2d 16 (2007) (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)); see also Merolillo v. Yates, 663 F.3d 444, 454 (9th Cir.2011); Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2011); Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.2010) (Brecht is the correct test for prejudice on collateral review, therefore “we need not conduct an analysis under AEDPA of whether the state court’s harmlessness determination on direct review ... was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”) (citing Fry, 551 U.S. at 119-20 , 127 S.Ct. 2321 ). Brecht requires reversal only if the error had a…