Clyde Eugene Hill v. Charles Zimmerman, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and District Attorney for Dauphin County

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

In this habeas corpus case, a state prisoner alleges that the trial court committed constitutional error in its jury charge on presumption of malice and the burden of proof on insanity. After finding exhaustion of state remedies, the district court denied relief on the merits of the insanity issue and held there was a procedural default on the malice claim. 1 We conclude that the malice instruction issue was never fairly presented to the state courts. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and direct dismissal of the habeas petition…