OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Frederic K. Dixon seeks federal habeas relief on the basis that the state trial court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. We agree and reverse the district court's denial of habeas relief.

I

Dixon was charged in the district court of Clark County, Nevada with murder with a deadly weapon for the shooting death of Derrick Nunley on November 14, 2003.

The parties do not dispute most of the facts related to the shooting, including the following: Early in the morning on the day of the shooting, Dixon went to Club 7, a night club in Las Vegas, with his two younger brothers, Gabriel and Marcus Anderson. When Dixon's girlfriend tried to leave, Troy Nunley (also known as Fly) and his friends were standing next to her vehicle in the parking lot. The Nunley group was asked to move to allow her to leave. They refused, and she hit Nunley in the arm as she backed up her car. Nunley became upset, kicked the woman's car, and screamed obscenities at her. When Dixon came out of the club, Nunley began yelling at him as well, and, at some point, removed a box cutter from his pocket. One of the club's security officers grabbed Nunley's arm to prevent him from using the box cutter.

Dixon and his brothers left the club's parking lot, and drove to the Palms Hotel and Casino. They were followed by a group of Nunley's friends, who made threatening gestures through the windows of their vehicles. After Dixon and his brothers reached the parking lot of the Palms, Nunley's friends arrived. Due to the loud commotion, the Palms security personnel did not allow the groups to enter the casino. In the parking lot, a fist fight began between Nunley's group and Dixon's group. Someone in Nunley's group began throwing rocks at Dixon and his brothers. Nunley pulled out the box cutter again, and brandished it at Dixon, repeatedly threatening that "I'm going to cut your face off," and that he would kill Dixon.

At some point, Nunley returned to his car and entered it from the passenger side, without closing the door. Dixon returned to his vehicle, got a gun, ran to Nunley's car, and shot him four times. Nunley died at the scene.

At trial, Dixon did not deny shooting Nunley. Instead, he argued that he shot Nunley in self-defense. Jury Instruction 19, which set forth the basic parameters of self-defense, contained an error. The instruction stated in full:

(emphasis added). It is undisputed that the italicized word should have been "unreasonable."1

The trial court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. "Murder" was defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, either express or implied." In contrast, Instruction 12 provided:

Instruction 13 further stated:

The jury found Dixon guilty of second-degree murder with a deadly weapon.2 Dixon was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.

Dixon appealed, arguing, among other things, that the self-defense instruction was clearly erroneous. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It agreed that the jury instruction was erroneous:

(emphasis in original). But, applying a harmless error analysis, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the error did not warrant a new trial. It stated,

Dixon filed a pro se state post-conviction petition, which the state district court denied. Dixon timely appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision.

Thereafter, Dixon filed a pro se federal habeas corpus petition raising the erroneous jury instruction. The district court denied the petition, holding that the state Supreme Court's denial of the claim on direct appeal was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable finding of fact. A panel of this court granted Dixon a certificate of appealability as to "whether the trial court's jury instruction on self-defense deprived appellant of due process." Thereafter, counsel was appointed to represent Dixon on appeal.

II

A writ of habeas corpus may be issued for a state prisoner only if "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), which applies to Dixon's petition, a federal court may grant a habeas petition with respect to a "claim that was adjudicated on the merits" in state court only if the state's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). "A district court's decision to grant or deny a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is reviewed de novo." Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

A

"When considering an allegedly erroneous jury instruction in a habeas proceeding, an appellate court first considers whether the error in the challenged instruction, if any, amounted to `constitutional error.'" Evanchyk v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "In a criminal trial, the State must prove every element of the offense, and a jury instruction violates due process if it fails to give effect to that requirement." Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433, 437, 124 S.Ct. 1830, 158 L.Ed.2d 701 (2004). But "not every ambiguity, inconsistency, or deficiency in a jury instruction rises to the level of a due process violation." Id. The appropriate inquiry "is whether the ailing instruction... so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." Id. (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge." Id. (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 378, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

"If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a `reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way' that violates the Constitution." Id. (quoting Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72, 112 S.Ct. 475). But this "reasonable likelihood" inquiry does not apply when the disputed instruction is erroneous rather than ambiguous. See Boyde, 494 U.S. at 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190 (distinguishing situations when the test would apply from those where the instruction at issue was "concededly erroneous [or] found so by a court"); see also Ho v. Carey, 332 F.3d 587, 592 (9th Cir. 2003).

When the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the instructional error on direct appeal, it held that the instruction "incorrectly states that an honest but reasonable belief will not reduce a murder charge to manslaughter," and was an "inaccurate statement of the law." In other words, the Nevada Supreme Court held that such a belief in fact could contribute to reducing a murder charge to manslaughter under state law. That statement of the Nevada Supreme Court is binding on this court, Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76, 126 S.Ct. 602, 163 L.Ed.2d 407 (2005) ("a state court's interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus"), and correctly reflects the underlying law of manslaughter in Nevada.3

The error did reduce the State's burden for convicting Dixon of murder instead of voluntary manslaughter. As correctly noted in the other instructions, "[m]urder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, either express or implied," but "[v]oluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being, without malice aforethought and without deliberation or premeditation." The instructions also properly explained that voluntary manslaughter "is a killing upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, caused by a provocation sufficient to make the passion irresistible." They further stated that the required provocation "must either consist of a serious and highly provoking injury inflicted upon the person killing, sufficient to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person, or an attempt by the person killed to commit a serious personal injury on the person killing." (emphasis added). But because the jurors also were told that an "honest but reasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense ... does not reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter," the jurors were not permitted to find the second, "serious personal injury" provocation required for voluntary manslaughter even if they determined that Dixon had honestly and reasonably believed that Nunley had attempted or was attempting to kill or seriously physically injure him.

Under state law, such a belief may contribute to reducing the murder charge to manslaughter, by helping establish the requisite provocation. The instruction was facially erroneous, because it stated otherwise.4 As a result, the kind of provocation that could give rise to manslaughter was improperly limited, even if the other elements of manslaughter were established. And the error was a constitutional one, as it made more onerous for the defendant, and less onerous for the prosecution, conviction for a lesser rather than a greater offense. See Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 104, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972); Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 768 (9th Cir.2009).

B

"Even where constitutional error is found, `in § 2254 proceedings a court must [also] assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error' under the Brecht [v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)] standard." Merolillo v. Yates, 663 F.3d 444, 454 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 121-22, 127 S.Ct. 2321, 168 L.Ed.2d 16 (2007)) (first alteration in original). Under Brecht, habeas petitioners are entitled to relief if "the error `had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." 507 U.S. at 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710. As explained by the Supreme Court,

Merolillo, 663 F.3d at 454 (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)) (alteration in original). "Where the record is so evenly balanced that a judge `feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error' and has `grave doubt' about whether an error affected a jury [substantially and injuriously], the judge must treat the error as if it did so." Id. (quoting O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435-38, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995)) (alteration in original).

The State suggests that Dixon must fulfill both the Brecht test and also show "that the Nevada Supreme Court's application of United States Supreme Court law was objectively unreasonable" under AEDPA. But the Supreme Court has "explained that we need not conduct an analysis under AEDPA of whether the state court's harmlessness determination on direct review — which is governed by the `harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' test set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) — was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law." Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Fry, 551 U.S. at 119-20, 127 S.Ct. 2321). "This is because the Brecht test `obviously subsumes' the `more liberal AEDPA/Chapman standard which requires only that the state court's harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt determination be unreasonable.'" Id. (quoting Fry, 551 U.S. at 120, 127 S.Ct. 2321). Thus, "[w]e `apply the Brecht test without regard for the state court's harmlessness determination.'" Ayala v. Wong, No. 09-99005, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 707162, slip op. at 33-34 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014) (quoting Pulido, 629 F.3d at 1012). Applying the Brecht test, we conclude that the instructional error had substantial and injurious influence on the jury's verdict.

As the Nevada Supreme Court noted, there was testimony that the confrontation between Dixon and Nunley was over and Nunley had retreated to his car by the time Dixon went to his own car, retrieved a gun, ran to Nunley's car and shot him while saying, "That's what you get for pulling a knife on me." But there was other testimony that could have supported a finding of adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter purposes, had the jury been properly instructed.

Among other evidence, Dixon's younger brother, Gabriel Anderson, who was present throughout the relevant events, testified about dangerous confrontations in different settings, in all of which Nunley, not Dixon, was the aggressor and during all of which Dixon tried repeatedly to de-escalate the situation, only to have Nunley continue his threats and violence. Anderson described an atmosphere in which the brothers were faced with Nunley and his threatening friends, making him "scared for my life." In the first parking lot, for example, Anderson saw Nunley hold a box cutter and appear to be ready to use it "to cut or stab" Dixon, a possibility that dissipated only when a security guard intervened. Also at that location, Anderson witnessed Nunley's friends yelling and screaming threats at Dixon.

In the second parking lot, Anderson heard several people in Nunley's group yelling at him and his brothers, "Going to kill you mother fucker. You're not getting out of Las Vegas alive. You mother fuckers are going to die." He described trying to leave the parking lot for the safety of the casino, only to be prevented from entering by security guards. Anderson then saw Nunley "jump[] out with a knife" and swing it at Dixon, while telling Dixon repeatedly, "I'm going to cut your mother fuckin' face off." Nunley also threatened Dixon, "You can dodge this knife, but you can't dodge these bullets." Anderson then saw Nunley "[take] off towards his car."

Dixon's defense counsel argued that Dixon reasonably believed that Nunley was going to his car to retrieve a gun, to follow through on his threat that Dixon would not be able to "dodge" his "bullets." The defense also maintained that Nunley was not about to leave the scene, based on the testimony that he had entered the car's passenger side door, not the driver's side, and had left the door open.

That Nunley was the aggressor, and that Dixon was "frightened," "not aggressive" and tried to end the confrontations was corroborated by Nunley's friend, Jermaine Clay. Clay further corroborated many of the threats that Nunley made to Dixon and the intimidating actions taken by Nunley's friends, such as throwing rocks at Dixon and his brothers. Clay also heard Nunley continue to say things to Dixon as Dixon walked toward Nunley's car.

At trial, a psychiatrist testified that, "to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Mr. Dixon interpreted the collective behavior of the victim as an authentic and immediate threat to his life and to the lives of his ... brothers." The psychiatrist also stated that "Mr. Dixon was convinced that he ... and his family were in acute danger, vital danger, that he was going to be killed and he acted in accordance with that perception."

In short, although there was also evidence to the contrary, there was considerable evidence the jury could have credited that Dixon had acted with adequate provocation, even though he could not establish the elements of the defense of self-defense and thereby avoid conviction for the killing altogether. In light of the other events, in which Nunley had repeatedly brandished a knife and threatened Dixon, and was the original aggressor, the jurors could have decided that Dixon had an "honest but reasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense," because Nunley had attempted to commit "a serious personal injury on" Dixon, and that insufficient time had passed between the provocation and shooting for the passion thereby provoked to pass and "a cool head to prevail." Jury Instr. No. 12. Thus, but for the erroneous jury instruction, the jurors reasonably may have convicted on the reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter instead of seconddegree murder. "[B]ecause we have `grave doubt[s] as to the harmlessness of [this] error,' we must rule for the Petitioner." Cudjo v. Ayers, 698 F.3d 752, 770 (9th Cir.2012) (alterations in original).

We note that the outcome is the same under the AEDPA/Chapman standard. Chapman provides that "the test for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless ... is whether it appears `beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (quoting Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. 824). Here, the Nevada Supreme Court "conclude[d] beyond a reasonable doubt that, given the totality of the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, the error did not substantially prejudice the jury's deliberations and verdict." Although the Nevada Supreme Court stated that it considered in so concluding "the totality of ... the evidence admitted at trial," it recited only the testimony that supported the verdict and did not acknowledge any of the testimony supporting provocation through reasonable fear of serious injury. Proper application of the Chapman standard requires consideration of "the trial record as a whole." Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 269, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We reverse the district court's denial of Dixon's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and remand with instructions to grant a conditional writ as to the second-degree murder conviction, requiring the State to release Dixon from custody as to that conviction unless the State initiates new trial proceedings within a reasonable period of time to be determined by the district court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.