Rademaker v. Paramo, No. 14-56946 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of first-degree murder with a special circumstance for committing the murder during the commission of a kidnapping, appealed the denial of his habeas petition. Based on an erroneous jury instruction regarding the element of asportation, the jury also found true the special circumstance that petitioner committed the murder during the commission of a kidnapping. Applying Chapman v. California, the state court found that the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under state law. The court concluded that the state court’s harmless-error determination was not an objectively unreasonable application of Chapman where the error did not prejudice petitioner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of David Rademaker’s habeas corpus petition challenging his California state conviction for first-degree murder with a special circumstance for committing the murder during the commission of a kidnapping. The jury found the special circumstance based on an erroneous jury instruction regarding the element of asportation. The panel held that the California Court of Appeal’s determination that the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt was not an objectively unreasonable application of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.