Kanda

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Romesh Chander Kanda appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse and remand.

Before 2000 California state courts routinely instructed juries that voluntary manslaughter required an intent to kill. The jury in Kanda’s trial was so instructed, and it convicted Kanda of second-degree murder. In June 2000 the California Supreme Court decided, in People v. Lasko, 23 Cal.4th 101 , 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 441 , 999 P.2d 666, 671 (2000), that the California statute on voluntary manslaughter did not require an intent to kill. In his habeas petition, Kanda argued that the faulty instruction relieved the prosecution of its constitutional burden under Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 704 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), to disprove heat of passion in making a case for second-degree murder.

We agree. The faulty instruction, coupled with the fact that the prosecution made numerous references to the erroneous intent requirement, very likely led the jury to believe that, if it found Kanda had acted in the heat of passion but without an intent to kill, it had to convict him of second-degree murder. The erroneous…