Hagos v. Raemisch, 707 F. App'x 520

Abraham Hagos, a Colorado prisoner, was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree burglary, felony menacing, and related conspiracy counts and sentenced to life; convictions arose from a retaliatory kidnapping/assault after a theft from a drug-distribution apartment.
Hagos exhausted state remedies: direct appeal and a Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion were unsuccessful; Colorado courts found some instructional error but no prejudice.
Hagos filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising eight claims; the district court denied relief on the merits and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
Hagos sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit on two claims: (1) instructional error in the kidnapping jury instruction (and related ineffective-assistance claim for counsel’s failure to object), and (2) the trial court’s response to a jury question about complicitor liability.
The Colorado courts had concluded the kidnapping instruction was erroneous but harmless because the record showed forcible asportation; they rejected ineffective-assistance relief for lack of prejudice. The state appellate court also held the trial court’s jury response adequately explained complicity and culpability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Erroneous kidnapping instruction / counsel’s failure to object	The jury instruction improperly allowed conviction by means other than force ("or otherwise"), violating due process; counsel was ineffective for not objecting	Any instructional error was harmless because evidence of forcible seizure was overwhelming; no prejudice from counsel’s failure to object	COA denied — reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s conclusion that state-court rejection was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law (no debatable prejudice)
Jury response on complicitor liability	Trial court’s answer to jury question failed to clear confusion; under Bollenbach judge should answer with concrete accuracy (plaintiff preferred a direct "no")	The court’s response, read with complicity instruction, adequately explained alternative liability and required culpability; no due process violation	COA denied — district court reasonably concluded the state-court decision comported with federal law and was not debatable

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (jury difficulties must be cleared with concrete accuracy)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)