Cite as: 540 U. S. 12 (2003)
Per Curiam
requires the opposite result. Indeed, a number of our harmless-error cases have involved capital defendants,2 Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 310 (1991) (unconstitutional admission of coerced confession at guilt stage); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990) (unconstitutionally broad jury instructions at sentencing stage); Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U. S. 249 (1988) (unconstitutional admission of evidence at sentencing stage), and we left a question similar to the one presented here open in another capital case, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 609, n. 7 (2002) ("We do not reach the State's assertion that any error was harmless because a pecuniary gain finding was implicit in the jury's guilty verdict").
In relying on the absence of precedent to distinguish our noncapital cases, and to hold that harmless-error review is not available for this type of Eighth Amendment claim, the Sixth Circuit exceeded its authority under § 2254(d)(1). A federal court may not overrule a state court for simply holding a view different from its own, when the precedent from this Court is, at best, ambiguous. As the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision does not conflict with the reasoning or the holdings of our precedent, it is not "contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law."
The question then becomes whether the Ohio Court of Appeals' determination is an "unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law." § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added; punctuation omitted). A constitutional error is harmless when "it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that
2 The Sixth Circuit cited Presnell v. Georgia, 439 U. S. 14 (1978) (per curiam), a due process case, noting that rather than remand for a harmless-error analysis, we simply reversed. In Presnell, we held that the Georgia Supreme Court violated due process when it sustained a death sentence because the sentence was supported by the evidence, even though the defendant was unaware of the charge and the issue was never submitted to a jury. Presnell, however, relied on the defendant's lack of notice and his inability to defend himself, not a faulty indictment or an incomplete jury instruction.
17
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007