835 F.3d 1018
9th Cir.2016Background
- Victim Kimberly Pandelios disappeared Feb 27, 1992 after answering a modeling ad; her skeletal remains and personal effects were later found near a creek in the Angeles National Forest.
- Evidence indicated she met David Rademaker for a photo shoot; prosecution contended Rademaker overpowered, anally assaulted, and drowned her, then attempted to destroy her car and evidence.
- At trial, prosecution charged a § 190.2 special circumstance that the murder occurred during a kidnapping, which required proof of asportation ("carrying away").
- The trial court sua sponte gave a post-1999, expanded California asportation instruction (CALJIC 9.50 revised after People v. Martinez) even though that standard was not retroactive to 1992.
- The jury convicted Rademaker of first-degree murder and found the kidnapping special circumstance true; the California Court of Appeal affirmed, applying Chapman harmless-error review.
- On federal habeas under AEDPA, the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the state court’s Chapman harmlessness determination was objectively unreasonable and affirmed denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s use of the expanded (post-Martinez) asportation instruction was a federal constitutional error requiring reversal | Rademaker: use of the non-retroactive Martinez-based instruction violated due process and prejudiced him on the kidnapping special circumstance | State: error (if any) was harmless because circumstantial evidence showed a substantial movement (≈1–1.5 miles) satisfying either definition of asportation | The court assumed constitutional error for purposes of review but held the state court reasonably found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman; AEDPA deference applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard for federal constitutional errors)
- People v. Martinez, 20 Cal.4th 225 (Cal. 1999) (adopted totality-of-circumstances asportation test; not retroactive)
- People v. Caudillo, 21 Cal.3d 562 (Cal. 1978) (earlier substantial-distance asportation rule)
- Ayala v. Davis, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) (AEDPA review of state harmlessness determinations)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference under AEDPA; fairminded jurists standard)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (actual prejudice standard for habeas review)