throbber
1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`
`Per Curiam
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`RAUL LOPEZ, WARDEN v. MARVIN VERNIS SMITH
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
`
`
`STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 13–946 Decided October 6, 2014
`
` PER CURIAM.
`
`When a state prisoner seeks federal habeas relief on the
`ground that a state court, in adjudicating a claim on the
`merits, misapplied federal law, a federal court may grant
`relief only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or
`involved an unreasonable application of, clearly estab-
`lished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
`of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1). We have
`emphasized, time and again, that the Antiterrorism and
`Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat.
`1214, prohibits the federal courts of appeals from rely-
`ing on their own precedent to conclude that a particular
`constitutional principle is “clearly established.” See, e.g.,
`
`Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U. S. __, __ (2013) (per curiam)
`(slip op. at 6). Because the Ninth Circuit failed to comply
`with this rule, we reverse its decision granting habeas
`
`relief to respondent Marvin Smith.
`I
`
`Respondent was arrested for the murder of his wife,
`
`Minnie Smith. On December 15, 2005, Mrs. Smith was
`found dead in the home she shared with respondent, and
`it was determined that she was killed by a massive blow to
`the head from a fireplace log roller. The home appeared to
`
`have been ransacked, and valuable jewelry was missing.
`
`The State charged respondent with first-degree murder
`and offered substantial incriminating evidence at trial.
`The prosecution presented evidence that respondent “was
`unfaithful to his wife for many years, that his wife was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`2
`
`
`LOPEZ v. SMITH
`
` Per Curiam
`
`threatening to divorce him, and that he told one of his
`
`
` former employees . . . that the ‘only way’ he or his wife
`would get out of their marriage was ‘to die,’ because he
`was ‘not going to give [Mrs. Smith] half of what [he] got so
`
`
`some other man can live off of it.’” 731 F. 3d 859, 862–863
`(CA9 2013) (second alteration in original). Respondent’s
`DNA was also found on the murder weapon, pieces of duct
`tape found near the body, and a burned matchstick that
`was found in the bedroom and that may have been used to
`inflict burns on the body. See id., at 863; see also People v.
`
`Smith, 2010 WL 4975500, *1–*2 (Cal. App., Dec. 8, 2010).
`The missing jewelry was discovered in the trunk of re-
`spondent’s car, wrapped in duct tape from the same roll
`
`that had provided the pieces found near the body. See 731
`F. 3d, at 863. Respondent’s DNA was found on the duct
`
`tape in his trunk. See Smith, 2010 WL 4975500, at *2. In
`addition, a criminologist testified that the ransacking of
`the Smiths’ home appeared to have been staged. See 731
`F. 3d, at 863.
`
`Respondent defended in part on the basis that he could
`not have delivered the fatal blow due to rotator cuff sur-
`gery several weeks before the murder. See ibid.
`(He
`mounted this defense despite the fact that police had
`observed him wielding a 6-foot-long 2 by 4 to pry some-
`thing out of a concrete slab at a construction site the week
`
`after the murder. See Smith, 2010 WL 4975500, at *1.)
`The defense also suggested that one of respondent’s former
`
`employees had committed the crime to obtain money to
`pay a debt he owed respondent. See 731 F. 3d, at 863.
`
`At the close of evidence, the prosecution requested an
`aiding-and-abetting instruction, and the trial court agreed
`to give such an instruction. During closing argument, the
`prosecutor contended that respondent was physically able
`to wield the log roller that had killed Mrs. Smith, but he
`also informed the jury that, even if respondent had not
`delivered the fatal blow, he could still be convicted on an
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`
`Per Curiam
`aiding-and-abetting theory. See id., at 864. The jury
`convicted respondent of first-degree murder without speci-
`fying which theory of guilt it adopted.
`After a series of state-court proceedings not relevant
`
`here, the California Court of Appeal affirmed respondent’s
`conviction. The state court rejected respondent’s assertion
`that he had inadequate notice of the possibility of con-
`viction on an aiding-and-abetting theory. The court ex-
`plained that “‘an accusatory pleading charging a defend-
`ant with murder need not specify the theory of murder on
`which the prosecution intends to rely,’” and noted that the
`“information charged defendant with murder in compli-
`ance with the governing statutes.” Smith, 2010 WL
`4975500, at *6–*7. Furthermore, the court held that “even
`
`if this case required greater specificity concerning the
`basis of defendant’s liability, the evidence presented at his
`
`
`Id., at *7. The
`preliminary examination provided it.”
`upshot was that “the information and preliminary exami-
`nation testimony adequately notified defendant he could
`be prosecuted for murder as an aider and abettor.” Id., at
`*8. The California Supreme Court denied respondent’s
`petition for review.
`
`Respondent filed a petition for habeas relief with the
`United States District Court for the Central District of
`California. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting
`relief, and the District Court summarily adopted the
`Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
`
`The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court acknowledged
`
`that the “information charging [respondent] with first-
`degree murder was initially sufficient to put him on notice
`that he could be convicted either as a principal or as an
`aider-and-abettor,” because under California law “aiding
`and abetting a crime is the same substantive offense as
`perpetrating the crime.” 731 F. 3d, at 868. But the Ninth
`Circuit nevertheless concluded that respondent’s Sixth
`Amendment and due process right to notice had been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`LOPEZ v. SMITH
`
` Per Curiam
`
`violated because it believed the prosecution (until it re-
`quested the aiding-and-abetting jury instruction) had tried
`the case only on the theory that respondent himself had
`delivered the fatal blow. See id., at 869.
`
`
`The Ninth Circuit did not purport to identify any case in
`which we have found notice constitutionally inadequate
`because, although the defendant was initially adequately
`
`apprised of the offense against him, the prosecutor focused
`at trial on one potential theory of liability at the expense
`of another. Rather, it found the instant case to be “indis-
`tinguishable from” the Ninth Circuit’s own decision in
`Sheppard v. Rees, 909 F. 2d 1234 (1989), which the court
`thought “faithfully applied the principles enunciated by
`the Supreme Court.” 731 F. 3d, at 868. The court also
`rejected, as an “unreasonable determination of the facts,”
`28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(2), the California Court of Appeal’s
`conclusion that preliminary examination testimony and
`the jury instructions conference put respondent on notice
`of the possibility of conviction on an aiding-and-abetting
`theory. See id., at 871–872.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`II
`
`A
`
`
`The Ninth Circuit held, and respondent does not dis-
`pute, that respondent initially received adequate notice of
`the possibility of conviction on an aiding-and-abetting
`theory. The question is therefore whether habeas relief is
`warranted because the State principally relied at trial on
`the theory that respondent himself delivered the fatal
`blow.
`
`
`Assuming, arguendo, that a defendant is entitled to
`notice of the possibility of conviction on an aiding-and-
`abetting theory, the Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief
`may be affirmed only if this Court’s cases clearly establish
`that a defendant, once adequately apprised of such a
`possibility, can nevertheless be deprived of adequate
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`
`Per Curiam
`notice by a prosecutorial decision to focus on another
`theory of liability at trial. The Ninth Circuit pointed to no
`case of ours holding as much. Instead, the Court of Ap-
`peals cited three older cases that stand for nothing more
`than the general proposition that a defendant must have
`adequate notice of the charges against him. See 731 F. 3d,
`
`at 866–867 (citing Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749,
`763–764 (1962); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 273–274
`(1948); Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196, 201 (1948)).
`
`This proposition is far too abstract to establish clearly
`the specific rule respondent needs. We have before cau-
`tioned the lower courts—and the Ninth Circuit in particu-
`lar—against “framing our precedents at such a high level
`
`of generality.” Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U. S. ___, ___
`(2013) (per curiam) (slip op., at 7). None of our decisions
`that the Ninth Circuit cited addresses, even remotely, the
`specific question presented by this case. See Russell,
`supra, at 752 (indictment for “refus[ing] to answer any
`question pertinent to [a] question under [congressional]
`inquiry,” 2 U. S. C. §192, failed to “identify the subject
`
`under congressional subcommittee inquiry”); In re Oliver,
`supra, at 259 (instantaneous indictment, conviction, and
`sentence by judge acting as grand jury with no prior notice
`of charge to defendant); Cole, supra, at 197 (affirmance of
`criminal convictions “under a . . . statute for violation of
`
`which [defendants] had not been charged”).1
`
`
`Because our case law does not clearly establish the legal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`——————
`1Respondent claims that our decision in Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U. S.
`
`110 (1991), although not cited by the Ninth Circuit, clearly establishes
`
` the legal principle he needs. But Lankford is of no help to respondent.
` That case addressed whether a defendant had adequate notice of the
`
`possibility of imposition of the death penalty—a far different question
`
`from whether respondent had adequate notice of the particular theory
`
` of liability. See id., at 111. In Lankford, moreover, the trial court itself
`
`made specific statements that encouraged the defendant to believe that
`
` the death penalty was off the table. See id., at 116–117.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`LOPEZ v. SMITH
`
` Per Curiam
`
`proposition needed to grant respondent habeas relief, the
`Ninth Circuit was forced to rely heavily on its own deci-
`
`sion in Sheppard, supra. Of course, AEDPA permits
`habeas relief only if a state court’s decision is “contrary to,
`or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly estab-
`lished Federal law” as determined by this Court, not by
`
`the courts of appeals. 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1). The Ninth
`Circuit attempted to evade this barrier by holding that
`Sheppard “faithfully applied the principles enunciated by
`the Supreme Court in Cole, Oliver, and Russell.” 731
`F. 3d, at 868. But Circuit precedent cannot “refine or
`sharpen a general principle of Supreme Court jurispru-
`dence into a specific legal rule that this Court has not
`
`announced.” Marshall, 569 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 6).
`
`Sheppard is irrelevant to the question presented by this
`case: whether our case law clearly establishes that a pros-
`ecutor’s focus on one theory of liability at trial can render
`earlier notice of another theory of liability inadequate.
`B
`
`The Ninth Circuit also disagreed with what it termed
`
`the state court’s “determination of the facts”—principally,
`the state court’s holding that preliminary examination
`testimony and the prosecutors’ request for an aiding-and-
`abetting jury instruction shortly before closing arguments
`adequately put respondent on notice of the prosecution’s
`aiding-and-abetting theory. 731 F. 3d, at 871 (internal
`quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit therefore
`granted relief under §2254(d)(2), which permits habeas
`relief where the state-court “decision . . . was based on an
`unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
`evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” That
`holding cannot be sustained.
`
`
`In purporting to reject the state court’s “determination
`of the facts,” the Ninth Circuit focused on preliminary
`examination testimony by an investigator about conversa-
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cite as: 574 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
`
`Per Curiam
`tions between respondent and his cellmate. According to
`the investigator, the cellmate stated that respondent told
`him that respondent “had to get rid of his wife because she
`was standing in the way of his future plans; that she was
`threatening to divorce him and he wasn’t going to give up
`half of his property”; that respondent made his house look
`like the site of a home invasion robbery; and that, when he
`left for work the morning of the murder, he left the win-
`dow open and did not set the alarm. Smith, 2010 WL
`4975500, at *7. The investigator also testified that the
`
`cellmate did not “‘know any of the details of the homicide
`itself and how it was carried out,’” and that respondent
`“‘never told [the cellmate] specifically who’” committed the
`homicide. Ibid. The California Court of Appeal held that
`these statements, taken together, suggested that respond-
`ent was involved in planning and facilitating the crime but
`that the fatal blow might have been delivered by an ac-
`
`complice. Ibid. Thus, the California court believed that
`even assuming that the information by itself was not
`sufficient, this testimony naturally lent itself to conviction
`on an aiding-and-abetting theory and so gave respondent
`even greater notice of such a possibility. Ibid.
`
`The Ninth Circuit also focused on the jury instructions
`
`conference, which occurred after the defense rested but
`before the parties’ closing arguments. During that confer-
`ence, prosecutors requested an aiding-and-abetting in-
`struction, which further provided notice to respondent.
`The California Court of Appeal concluded that this case is
`
`distinguishable from Sheppard v. Rees, 909 F. 2d 1234,
`because, unlike that case, the conference here did not
`occur immediately before closing arguments. The Ninth
`Circuit disagreed, holding that because “defense counsel
`had only the lunch recess to formulate a response” to the
`aiding-and-abetting instruction, this case “is indistin-
`guishable from Sheppard,” where the prosecution also
`“requested the new instruction the same day as closing.”
`
`

`
`8
`
`
`LOPEZ v. SMITH
`
`
`Per Curiam
`
`731 F. 3d, at 868, 870.
`
`Although the Ninth Circuit claimed its disagreement
`
`with the state court was factual in nature, in reality its
`grant of relief was based on a legal conclusion about the
`adequacy of the notice provided. The Ninth Circuit be-
`lieved that the events detailed above, even when taken
`together with the information filed against respondent,
`failed to measure up to the standard of notice applicable in
`cases like this. That ranked as a legal determination
`governed by §2254(d)(1), not one of fact governed by
`§2254(d)(2). But, as we have explained, the Ninth Circuit
`cited only its own precedent for establishing the appropri-
`ate standard. Absent a decision of ours clearly establish-
`ing the relevant standard, the Ninth Circuit had nothing
`against which it could assess, and deem lacking, the notice
`afforded respondent by the information and proceedings.
`It therefore had no basis to reject the state court’s assess-
`
`ment that respondent was adequately apprised of the pos-
`
`sibility of conviction on an aiding-and-abetting theory.2
`The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
`
`judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for
`further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
`
`
`It is so ordered.
`
`
`
`
`——————
`2Because we reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the foregoing
`
`grounds, we need not opine on the correctness of that court’s discussion
`
`
`of Griffin v. United States, 502 U. S. 46 (1991), or Brecht v. Abraham-
`son, 507 U. S. 619 (1993).

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket