In re Figueroa
229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673
Cal.2018Background
- In 1993 Vicente Benavides was convicted of first-degree murder with three special circumstances (felony-murder based on rape, sodomy, and lewd conduct) and sentenced to death; this Court affirmed on direct appeal in People v. Benavides.
- The victim was a 21-month-old child, Consuelo Verdugo, who arrived at hospitals with catastrophic abdominal and genital/anal injuries and later died; forensic testimony at trial attributed death to anal penetration causing blunt-force internal injuries.
- After trial, numerous medical witnesses recanted or revised their trial testimony and new expert review opined that the sexual-assault findings and the forensic pathologist’s cause-of-death theory were medically unsupported or impossible; alternative explanations included medical intervention, edema (DIC), and preexisting injuries.
- The Habeas Corpus Resource Center discovered fabricated investigator declarations in the case and filed a corrected petition; the Court issued an order to show cause on claims that false evidence was admitted and trial counsel was ineffective.
- The respondent (custodian) conceded that false evidence was introduced, that convictions for rape, sodomy, lewd conduct, the corresponding special-circumstance findings, and the death sentence must be vacated, but argued the murder conviction should be reduced to second degree rather than entirely vacated.
- The Supreme Court found the false-evidence concession and repudiations dispositive, concluded prejudice (reasonable probability of a different outcome), declined to reduce the conviction to second degree because the result without the false evidence is speculative, and vacated the entire judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Benavides) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether false or repudiated expert evidence was introduced at trial | Trial forensic and medical testimony (esp. Dr. Dibdin, Dr. Diamond) was false or later repudiated, so habeas relief is warranted | Conceded that false evidence was introduced and that sexual-offense convictions and death sentence must be vacated | Court: False evidence was introduced and respondent’s concession and recantations suffice to grant relief |
| Whether the false evidence was materially prejudicial (reasonable-probability test) | Vacatur required because false evidence was central to guilt and penalty | Respondent concedes materiality as to sexual offenses and death, but argues murder conviction can stand | Court: Materiality established; relief warranted; sexual convictions, special circumstances, and death vacated |
| Appropriate remedy: reduce first-degree felony-murder to second-degree murder vs. new trial/remand | Benavides: cannot fairly be reduced to second degree because jury verdict was tainted by pervasive false evidence; reduction would be speculative | Respondent: Court may reform verdict to second degree rather than order new trial (invoke In re Bower and section 1260 authority) | Court: Declined to reduce to second degree—evidence without false testimony is too speculative; vacated entire judgment and remanded |
| Need for an evidentiary hearing on disputed factual issues (including ineffective assistance) | A hearing may be unnecessary because respondent concedes core allegations; other factual issues remain but are outside scope | Respondent argued concessions obviate need for hearing on falsity; disputes over counsel performance remain | Court: No evidentiary hearing required on falsity because there are no disputed material facts outside the record; did not resolve ineffective-assistance claims and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Benavides, 35 Cal.4th 69 (California Supreme Court) (original direct-appeal opinion describing trial evidence)
- In re Richards, 63 Cal.4th 291 (California Supreme Court) (expert repudiation can constitute "false evidence" under §1473)
- In re Bower, 38 Cal.3d 865 (California Supreme Court) (authority discussing modification of convictions and comparable habeas/appellate powers)
- People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464 (California Supreme Court) (standards for pleading and adjudicating state habeas petitions)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (California Supreme Court) (reasonable-probability prejudice standard applicable to state-law error)