No. 23-5440

Roman Andreyevich Glukhoy v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2023-08-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review chapman-standard chapman-v-california criminal-procedure harmless-error jury-instructions legal-theory prejudice prejudicial-error standard-of-review
Key Terms:
Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2023-10-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

When a defendant is convicted after a trial court instructs a jury on two theories of guilt, one of which is legally correct and one legally incorrect, how does the reviewing court determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. When a defendant is convicted after a trial court instructs a jury on two theories of guilt, one of which is legally correct and one legally incorrect, how does the reviewing court determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18? Does the reviewing court consider the likelihood that the jury applied the erroneous instruction or only the strength of the evidence to support a guilty verdict using the correct instruction? ii

Docket Entries

2023-10-10
Petition DENIED.
2023-09-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/6/2023.
2023-09-14
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2023-08-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 25, 2023)

Attorneys

California
Jamie Alison ScheideggerCA Dept. of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Jamie Alison ScheideggerCA Dept. of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Roman Glukhoy
Mark Stuart GoldrosenMark Goldrosen, Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Mark Stuart GoldrosenMark Goldrosen, Attorney at Law, Petitioner