Hedgpeth v. Pulido

The Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion on Tuesday, holding that harmless error analysis should be applied when reviewing a conviction based on jury instructions that contain more than one theory of guilt, including an invalid one.

Michael Pulido was convicted of first-degree murder in state court in California for his involvement in the shooting of a gas station attendant during the course of a robbery. When the case was tried, it was submitted to the jury on three alternative theories: that Pulido personally shot the cashier at a gas station and convenience store in San Mateo in May 1992, that he aided and abetted in the robbery during the shooting, or that he aided in the robbery only after the shooting.

During five days of deliberation, the jury sent out numerous questions about aiding-and-abetting liability under a felony murder theory — that is, a murder committed during a felony. The California Supreme Court found that the third theory — aiding in the robbery after the shooting had occurred — would not support a felony murder verdict, since the homicide would have been completed.

The state court, however, ruled that, because the jury had found special circumstances, that was an indication that the murder occurred while Pulido was taking part in the robbery.

Pulido challenged his conviction in federal district court, which found a structural error in the erroneous jury instruction. The court overturned the jury verdict and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

On Dec. 2, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion, which held that a conviction based on jury instructions containing more than one theory of guilt, with one of those theories invalid, is to be judged on whether that was harmless error. While unanimous in that part of the ruling, three justices dissented over the decision to send the case back to the Ninth Circuit for harmless error analysis.

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Stevens wrote that the court should uphold the Ninth Circuit ruling because the appeals court had already engaged in the harmless error analysis, even though it had labeled the error as structural.

“Because the District Court’s analysis was correct and the Court of Appeals’ result was substantially the same, I think this Court’s decision to remand for the purpose of obtaining a third analysis of the harmless-error issue is a misuse of scarce judicial resources,” Stevens wrote. “I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”

Question presented: Can erroneous jury instructions given at the close of a murder trial lead to federal habeas corpus relief, or do they merely constitute harmless error?