Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921

Miller challenged his first-degree murder conviction via a K.S.A. 60-1507 habeas corpus action alleging ineffective appellate counsel.
The Court of Appeals reversed Miller’s conviction due to an allegedly incorrect written jury instruction that diluted the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The flawed instruction substituted “each” for “any,” directing acquittal only if the jury doubted every element, not any single element.
Oral instructions at trial followed a correct standard, but the written instruction used in deliberations was erroneous and was emphasized by prosecutors during closing.
On direct appeal Miller’s appellate counsel did not challenge the written instruction; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, citing structural error.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review to determine whether appellate counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland and whether the error was structural warranting reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was appellate counsel's failure to challenge the written instruction deficient?	Miller’s appellate counsel overlooked a clearly erroneous instruction.	State argues no deficiency or prejudice; strategy or harmless error could apply.	Yes; failure was deficient
Did the erroneous instruction constitute structural error requiring reversal on direct appeal?	The error was structural and per se prejudicial, undermining confidence in the verdict.	The error could be harmless or cured by the record; not necessarily structural.	Yes; instructional defect was structural and required reversal

Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (per se prejudice when reasonable-doubt instruction is flawed)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 149 (2009) (structural error framework)
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (structural error doctrine applied to misreading burdens)
State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199 (2013) (approval of certain reasonable doubt instructions; not error)
State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94 (2013) (reasonable doubt instruction not erroneous in that case)
State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460 (1997) (pattern instructions approved; burden of proof guidance)