California v. Roy (SCOTUS 1996), 519 U.S. 2

Summary

The Court held that the Ninth Circuit applied the wrong harmless-error standard when reviewing Roy's state conviction on federal habeas corpus. Because the instructional mistake was a trial error rather than a structural error, the habeas court had to apply the more deferential standard asking whether the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict, with grave doubt resolved for the petitioner. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's determination and remanded for application of that standard. Justice Scalia, concurring, agreed with the remand but would have required the court to assess whether the jury's findings effectively embraced the omitted intent element.

Holding

Harmless-error standard for federal habeas review of an omitted or misdescribed criminal element. A federal habeas court must review this type of instructional mistake under the Kotteakos substantial-and-injurious-effect standard, not under the stricter Chapman standard applicable to direct state-court review and not under the Ninth Circuit's modified formulation.