In re Martinez
226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Hector Martinez was convicted by a jury of first degree murder (and related assaults) after instructions allowed conviction on two theories: direct aiding-and-abetting and the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.
- The jury returned a general verdict and found gang- and firearm-related enhancements true; Martinez was sentenced to 50 years to life plus determinate time.
- After Martinez’s trial, this Court decided People v. Chiu, holding the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine cannot support a first degree (premeditated) murder conviction.
- Martinez petitioned for habeas corpus arguing Chiu requires relief; the Court of Appeal affirmed on sufficiency grounds rather than applying Chiu’s prejudice standard.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide the proper prejudice standard on collateral habeas review when Chiu error occurred and whether Martinez’s conviction must be vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chiu error on habeas requires reversal under same standard as on direct appeal | Martinez: habeas petitioner need only show jury was instructed on correct and incorrect theories; prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt jury relied on valid theory | AG: habeas petitioner should bear a heavier burden (Zerbe/Mutch standard) or federal Brecht/Hedgpeth collateral harmlessness standard | Court: Apply Chiu/Guiton standard on habeas when change in law is retroactive; prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt jury relied on valid theory |
| Whether federal harmless-error standard (Brecht/Hedgpeth) should apply in state habeas | Martinez: unnecessary; state framework protects finality while vindicating jury-trial rights | AG: adopt Brecht/Hedgpeth to further protect finality in collateral proceedings | Court: declines to adopt federal standard; state rule suffices |
| Whether the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt the jury relied on aiding-and-abetting (valid theory) rather than natural-and-probable-consequences (invalid) | Martinez: prosecutor emphasized natural-and-probable-consequences; jury question during deliberations showed reliance risk | AG/Ct. of Appeal: evidence is sufficient to support direct aiding-and-abetting conviction | Court: record does not permit ruling beyond a reasonable doubt that jury relied on valid theory; Chiu error prejudicial |
| Remedy if conviction vacated | Martinez: request habeas relief or reduction to second degree murder | AG: preserve first-degree conviction or retrial | Court: grant habeas relief, vacate first-degree murder conviction; if prosecution does not retry, enter judgment for second degree murder and resentence accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine cannot support first degree murder; reversal required unless jury reliance on valid theory shown beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Guiton, 4 Cal.4th 1116 (1993) (when jury instructed on valid and invalid theories, reversal required unless valid-theory reliance shown beyond a reasonable doubt)
- In re Bell, 19 Cal.2d 488 (1942) (on habeas, presumption of regularity places burden on petitioner to show conviction was based on invalid portion of partially invalid statute)
- In re Zerbe, 60 Cal.2d 666 (1964) (habeas relief available where no material dispute of facts and statute did not proscribe conduct)
- People v. Mutch, 4 Cal.3d 389 (1971) (applied Zerbe standard where change in law required retroactive relief and facts undisputed)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (federal collateral harmless-error standard: conviction overturned if error had substantial and injurious effect)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (federal habeas standard: reversal only if error had substantial and injurious effect or judge in grave doubt)
- O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (clarifies federal "grave doubt" application under Brecht)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (2009) (invalid-theory instruction can be harmless when other evidence or verdict aspects leave no reasonable doubt jury made necessary findings under valid theory)