18
Per Curiam
the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.' " Neder, supra, at 15 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967)); see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 681 (1986). We may not grant respondent's habeas petition, however, if the state court simply erred in concluding that the State's errors were harmless; rather, habeas relief is appropriate only if the Ohio Court of Appeals applied harmless-error review in an "objectively unreasonable" manner. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U. S. 63, 75-77 (2003); see also Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 25 (2002) (per curiam); Williams, supra, at 410 (An "unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law").
The Ohio Court of Appeals' conclusion was hardly objectively unreasonable. The Ohio Supreme Court has defined a " 'principal offender' " as " 'the actual killer,' " State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St. 3d 548, 559, 709 N. E. 2d 1166, 1177 (1999), and in this case, the jury was instructed on the elements of aggravated murder, " 'defined as purposely causing the death of another while committing Aggravated Robbery,' " 310 F. 3d, at 432 (Suhrheinrich, J., dissenting). The trial judge further instructed the jury that it must determine " 'whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense of Aggravated Murder was committed while the Defendant was committing Aggravated Robbery.' " Ibid. In light of these instructions, the jury verdict would surely have been the same had it been instructed to find as well that the respondent was a "principal" in the offense. After all, he was the only defendant charged in the indictment. There was no evidence presented that anyone other than respondent was involved in the crime or present at the store.3
3 The Court of Appeals noted evidence brought to light for the first time in the habeas proceeding in the District Court that suggested there might have been another participant in the crime, Joe Jasso. The jury, however, was not presented with this evidence at trial, and thus it has no bearing on the correctness of the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision that the State
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007