California's application to stay enforcement of the California
Supreme Court's judgment invalidating respondent's death sentence
is granted. The State Supreme Court's judgment was based on its
holdings that the failure to properly instruct the jury at
respondent's murder trial on the issue of intent to kill violated
his right to due process under
Sandstrom v. Montana,
442 U. S. 510, and
that such error was not harmless. The State seeks the stay so that
it can petition for certiorari to raise the question of the proper
constitutional standard for determining prejudice with regard to
Sandstrom errors. Since the outcome here may well be
affected by the decision in another, pending case, it is likely
that a majority of this Court would not want to dispose of the
petition for certiorari in this case before a decision is rendered
in such other case.
JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.
Applicant, the State of California, asks that I stay pending
disposition of its petition for certiorari the enforcement of the
judgment of the California Supreme Court, which invalidated the
death sentence imposed on respondent Hamilton for the 1979 murder
of a woman near San Diego.
41 Cal. 3d
408,
710 P.2d 981
(1985). The jury was not instructed that it was required, as a
matter of state law under
Carlos v. Superior
Court, 35 Cal. 3d
131,
672 P.2d 862
(1983), to find that Hamilton intended to kill his victim before it
could impose the death penalty. The California Supreme Court held
that this failure to properly instruct the jury on the issue of
intent violated Hamilton's right to due process under this Court's
decision in
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.
S. 510 (1979). 41 Cal. 3d at 431, 710 P.2d at 995. The
court also held that such
Page 476 U. S. 1302
Sandstrom error was not harmless under the four-part
test for harmlessness set forth in
People v.
Garcia, 36 Cal. 3d
539, 554-557,
684 P.2d 826,
835-837 (1984),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1229 (1985). In
particular, the court concluded that the fourth part of the
Garcia test, under which a
Sandstrom error may be
found harmless if "the record not only establishes the necessary
intent as a matter of law, but shows the contrary evidence not
worthy of consideration,"
Garcia, supra, at 556, 684 P.2d
at 835, did not apply to the instant case. 41 Cal. 3d at 432, 710
P.2d at 995-996.
The State requests a stay so that it can petition for
certiorari, raising the following question:
"What is the proper standard of prejudice under the United
States Constitution for errors in jury instructions regarding
intent to kill in capital cases?"
The State argues that the California Supreme Court misconstrued
this Court's decision in
Connecticut v. Johnson,
460 U. S. 73
(1983), when it set up in
Garcia its four-part
harmlessness test for
Sandstrom errors, and that, under a
proper test, the
Sandstrom error in the instant case would
be found harmless. The State also points out that, under California
law, it will be forced to begin a new trial on the issue of
Hamilton's sentence by May 12, 1986, or be forever barred from
seeking the death penalty.
See Cal.Penal Code Ann. ยง
1382(2) (West 1982). On the other hand, since the California
Supreme Court affirmed Hamilton's murder conviction, he will remain
confined whether or not a stay is granted.
This Court currently has before it the case of
Rose v.
Clark, No. 84-1974, which involves the question whether a
Sandstrom error may ever be found harmless and, if so,
under what circumstances. Our decision in
Rose v. Clark
may well affect the outcome of the instant case. For this reason, I
believe that a majority of this Court would not want to dispose of
the petition for certiorari in this case before a decision is
rendered in
Rose v. Clark. I therefore stay the
Page 476 U. S. 1303
enforcement of the judgment of the California Supreme Court
pending further action by me or by the Court.