Peter Elvik v. Renee Baker, 660 F. App'x 538

Petitioner Peter Elvik (then 14) was tried for a killing; he sought a jury instruction based on Nev. Rev. Stat. § 194.010, which presumes children ages 8–14 lack capacity to distinguish right from wrong unless the prosecution proves otherwise by clear proof. The trial court refused the instruction.
At trial the prosecution presented evidence including flight, hiding the victim’s gun and wallet, giving a false name, long-distance use of the victim’s car, and admissions; defense emphasized youth, immaturity, and inconsistent statements (e.g., claimed LSD use, fear, childish remarks).
After conviction, Elvik obtained collateral relief: the district court conditionally granted his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, concluding the omission of the § 194.010 instruction was not harmless.
Nevada Supreme Court issued a reasoned decision applying a state-law harmlessness standard (not Chapman); the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the district court should have instead developed alternative theories to uphold the state ruling and whether the instructional error was harmless under federal law.
The Ninth Circuit held the district court was not required to create alternative theories for the Nevada Supreme Court’s reasoned decision, concluded the state court had applied the wrong harmless-error standard (so federal review was de novo), and determined the instructional omission was not harmless under Brecht/Kotteakos.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nevada / State)	Defendant's Argument (Elvik)	Held
Whether the district court was required to develop alternative theories to sustain the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision	District argued the district court should craft alternative rationales to support the state decision	Elvik argued the Nevada Supreme Court issued a reasoned decision; no alternative theories were needed	Court held district court was not obligated to develop alternative theories; state court provided a reasoned opinion
Whether omission of jury instruction under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 194.010 was harmless on collateral review	State argued the evidence overwhelmingly showed Elvik knew right from wrong and any error was harmless under Brecht/Davis	Elvik argued the presumption under § 194.010 shifted a substantive element and its omission relieved the prosecution of its burden, producing actual prejudice	Court held omission was not harmless: state court applied wrong standard so federal de novo review; under Brecht/Kotteakos the record raises grave doubt and a reasonable probability of a different result

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (summary decisions and obligation of lower courts to supply alternative grounds)
Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (state harmless-error review must be assessed under § 2254(d); clarifies standard for federal habeas review of harmless-error determinations)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (collateral-review harmless-error standard: substantial and injurious effect or influence)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (inquiry whether error substantially influenced jury verdict; grave doubt rule)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (federal standard for harmlessness of constitutional error)