Legal Opinion
Michael Jerome Powell v. George M. Galaza, Warden
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 6, 2003No. 01-15195PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. *
Before B. FLETCHER, BOOCHEVER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
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.…
2Cases cited26 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
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Christopher Evans Hubbart v. Robert Knapp Atascadero State HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Jimmy D. Carty v. Craig Nelson, Warden Bill Lockyer, Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Armando Castillo v. James McFadden Arizona Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Dobynes v. HubbardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Castillo v. SmallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.