Christopher Connors v. Brian Williams, Sr.
694 F. App'x 478
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- December 14, 1990: Kelly Vanlandingham was shot dead in the Nevada desert; Christopher and Tim Connors were charged with murder and robbery.
- Jury was instructed on an "open" murder charge covering first- and second-degree murder and manslaughter; prosecution advanced two alternate theories of first-degree murder: felony murder (during robbery) and willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (using the Kazalyn instruction to define deliberation as part of premeditation).
- At trial Tim testified he acted in self-defense; both brothers were convicted (Christopher of first-degree murder and robbery) and sentenced (Christopher: life with parole eligibility plus a consecutive 15-year robbery term).
- Postconviction proceedings: direct appeal to Nevada Supreme Court denied; federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 followed; COA limited to whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the Kazalyn instruction.
- Court later learned trial counsel had in fact objected; district court granted leave to amend and denied the amended petition. The Ninth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that using the Kazalyn instruction was a due-process error but analyzed harmlessness.
- The jury was instructed on felony-murder and found robbery; the evidence that the killing occurred during a robbery was overwhelming, leading the court to conclude any Kazalyn-related error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Connors' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Kazalyn instruction (defining deliberation as part of premeditation) violated due process because the killing predated Kazalyn | Kazalyn instruction unconstitutionally blurred first- and second-degree murder; violated due process when applied retroactively | Instruction was permissible and, in any event, any error was harmless given other instructions and evidence | Court assumed use of Kazalyn could be a due-process violation but held any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether any instructional error warranted habeas relief (and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object) | Connors asserted ineffective assistance and that the instruction required relief | State emphasized trial counsel did object and that felony-murder instruction and overwhelming evidence of robbery make error harmless | Court found objection had been made; regardless, felony-murder theory and overwhelming evidence rendered the error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Kazalyn v. State, 108 Nev. 67, 825 P.2d 578 (Nev. 1992) (Nevada decision discussing the instruction at issue)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (harmless-error standard for constitutional trial errors)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (error harmless only if it did not contribute to verdict beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Babb v. Lozowsky, 719 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2013) (describing elements required to convict under felony-murder theory)