Brewer v. Neuschmid

Background

A jury convicted Wynn Brewer of conspiracy to commit murder and being a felon in possession under California law. Brewer filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a request to challenge a state conviction or custody on federal-law grounds. His sole claim concerned the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on two alternative theories: conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm and conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter. Brewer argued that the refusal violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Voluntary-Manslaughter Theory

Brewer acknowledged that he had not presented the voluntary-manslaughter portion of his claim to the California Supreme Court on direct review. Because no state-law remedy remained available, the court held that this part of the claim was procedurally defaulted, meaning that a state-court presentation requirement barred federal review. Brewer did not identify cause that would excuse the default.

The court also rejected Brewer’s reliance on the fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice exception. That exception requires exceptionally strong evidence of innocence showing that the court cannot trust the trial’s outcome unless it was free of a serious constitutional error. The court found that Brewer had not made that factual showing. In addition, the court stated that California does not recognize conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter.

Assault-with-a-Firearm Theory

The California Court of Appeal had held that conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm was not a lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit murder. The federal court stated that a state court’s interpretation of state law binds a federal court reviewing a state conviction. It therefore did not revisit that state-law conclusion.

The court explained that the absence of a lesser included offense defeated Brewer’s claim because the Supreme Court has rejected a constitutional right to an instruction on a lesser related offense. The court further stated that, even assuming—contrary to the state court’s ruling—that conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon were a lesser included offense, it was not clear that the Constitution required such an instruction in a noncapital case. The Supreme Court had not recognized that right outside the capital context, and federal habeas law did not require the state court to extend existing precedent.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court also denied a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.