Legal Opinion
Michael Jerome Powell v. George M. Galaza, Warden
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 4, 2002No. 01-15195PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
In the middle of Michael Jerome Powell’s trial for failure to appear at a sentencing hearing, the trial court instructed the jury that Powell’s own testimony satisfied the specific intent element of the crime. Such an instruction is impermissible under the principles of Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263, 109 S.Ct. 2419, 105 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989), and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and the reasoning of Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), dictates that harmless error review is inapplicable.…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Brecht v. AbrahamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jesus Avila v. George M. Galaza, Warden Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Michael Jerome Powell v. George M. Galaza, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Galaza, Warden v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 2002