The following excerpt is from Cash v. Borg, 967 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1992):
Cash is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because the instructions given by the trial court adequately defined each crime, explained the difference between robbery and grand theft and made clear the circumstances under which the felony murder rule applied. See United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir.1990) (it is not reversible error to refuse to give a jury instruction if the instructions given adequately cover the defense theory).
In any event, Cash's petition has no merit because he was not found guilty of felony murder or robbery, but rather of murder in the second degree and grand theft person. Without a reasonable likelihood that a jury has applied a challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution, Cash's due process rights have not been violated. See Estelle v. McQuire, 112 S.Ct. at 475, 482 (1992).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.