United States Ninth Circuit

Denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction for murder in state court and a related twenty-year enhancement for discharge of a firearm during commission of a felony is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as: 1) because "designed to be used as a weapon" is an element of the offense and an issue of fact, the trial court's direction to the jury that a flare gun is a firearm was constitutional error; and 2) such instruction took a critical issue of fact away from the jury in violation of clearly established constitutional law.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/20/2007
• Decided 11/01/2007
• Published 11/01/2007

Judges

• Before:  MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, STEPHEN REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, RAYMOND C. FISHER, RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, JAY S. BYBEE, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Wayne Young, Santa Monica, CA, for petitioner-appellant Theodore B. Medley.


• For Appellees:
  
• Robert M. Foster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for respondent-appellee D.L. Runnels, Warden;  Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief.