Marcella Lunsford v. Tina Hornbeak, 665 F. App'x 563

Marcella Lunsford, a California state prisoner, appealed the denial of her federal habeas petition challenging convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
The California Court of Appeal found an instructional error: the jury was improperly told murder is automatically first degree if the victim is a witness; but it ruled that error harmless because the jury found the lying-in-wait special circumstance true.
Lunsford asserted additional instructional defects regarding lying-in-wait (mental state, natural-and-probable-consequence, and duration of waiting) and argued these state-law errors warranted federal habeas relief.
She also argued the trial court erred by failing to list eight overt acts in the conspiracy instruction; the state court held that conviction of the murder (the target offense) satisfied the overt-act requirement and any omission was harmless.
Lunsford claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct (a purported threat to her son and impeachment of her daughter); the state court denied relief on the merits and the federal court declined to expand a certificate of appealability on these claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. First-degree murder instruction allowing witness-motive theory	Instruction improperly allowed conviction based solely on killing a witness, violating due process	Error, if any, was harmless because jury found lying-in-wait special circumstance	Court: State court reasonably held the instructional error harmless under Hedgpeth framework
2. Lying-in-wait instruction contents (intent, natural-probable-consequence, duration)	Instructions failed to require personal intent, foreseeability, or substantial waiting period	Instructions were correct under state law; in any event these are state-law errors not cognizable on federal habeas	Court: No federal relief; state court reasonably applied state law (Estelle)
3. Failure to list overt acts in conspiracy instruction	Jury should have been instructed on the eight overt acts alleged	Omission harmless because murder conviction necessarily establishes an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy	Court: State-court ruling not contrary to Supreme Court law; omission harmless
4. Ineffective assistance for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting/moving for new trial re: alleged threats and impeachment of daughter	Prosecutor’s remarks were not misconduct or would not have been sustained; no prejudice shown under Strickland; state court reasonably applied Strickland	Court: Declined to expand COA; state court reasonably denied Strickland claim

Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (instructional error allowing an invalid theory is reviewed for harmless error)
Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (AEDPA deference to reasonable state-court decisions)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas does not lie for state-law errors)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (AEDPA + Strickland double deference to state-court merits rulings)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for granting certificate of appealability)
Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091 (no clearly established Supreme Court rule requiring listing overt acts in conspiracy instruction)
United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d 1432 (omitted elements may be harmless if no rational jury could convict without finding the omitted fact)
Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098 (standards for expanding COA)