276
Opinion of the Court
Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 309 (opinion of Rehnquist, C. J., for the Court). Pp. 278-282.
596 So. 2d 177, reversed and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 282.
John Wilson Reed, by appointment of the Court, 506 U. S. 996, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were William J. Keppel, Michael J. Wahoske, Christopher J. Riley, and Karen A. Fairbairn.
Jack Peebles argued the cause for respondent. With him
on the brief was Harry F. Connick.*
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction may be harmless error.
I
Petitioner was charged with first-degree murder in the course of committing an armed robbery at a New Orleans bar. His alleged accomplice in the crime, a convicted felon named Michael Hillhouse, testifying at the trial pursuant to a grant of immunity, identified petitioner as the murderer. Although several other people were in the bar at the time of the robbery, only one testified at trial. This witness, who had been unable to identify either Hillhouse or petitioner at a physical lineup, testified that they committed the robbery, and that she saw petitioner hold a gun to the victim's head. There was other circumstantial evidence supporting the conclusion that petitioner was the triggerman. 596 So. 2d 177, 180-181 (La. 1992). In closing argument, defense counsel argued that there was reasonable doubt as to both the identity of the murderer and his intent.
*Barry S. Simon filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007