Pulido v. Chrones
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25907
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Pulido, age 16, was convicted in state court of first-degree murder, robbery, receiving stolen property, and auto theft; life without parole.
- Jury found robbery-murder special-circumstance; evidence included Pulido’s thumbprint on a Coke can and fingerprints on cash register.
- California Supreme Court held the felony-murder instruction misdescribed and could mislead, but found no prejudice, citing the robbery-murder verdict.
- Pulido later challenged in federal habeas, revealing a typographical error in a separate special-circumstance instruction (or vs. and).
- This Ninth Circuit appeal focused on whether the instructional errors had substantial and injurious effect on the verdict under Brecht.
- Supreme Court remanded to assess actual prejudice; the panel's prior ruling was superseded by Hedgpeth v. Pulido v. Chrones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudicial effect of faulty felony-murder instruction | Pulido argues error had substantial influence on verdict. | Chrones contends errors were harmless under Brecht. | Harmless prejudice under Brecht; no relief. |
| Effect of defective special-circumstance instruction | Late-joiner theory tainted special-circumstance finding. | Special finding supported by other record evidence. | Special finding did not render error prejudicial. |
| Jury deliberation questions as prejudice indicators | Jury questions show confusion over timing and intent. | Questions did not prove reliance on invalid theory. | Questions insufficient to show substantial prejudice. |
| Verdit form's curing effect on instructional errors | Verdict form could reflect correct timing; not cure defects. | Form, together with instructions, cured error. | No reversible prejudice; form aided harmlessness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (AEDPA does not replace traditional prejudice test)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmlessness standard governs habeas reviews of state trials)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (grave doubt standard for prejudicial effect in aggregate)
- Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973) (instruction must be viewed in context of entire charge)
- Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (jury questions can illuminate confusion and prejudice)
- Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433 (2004) (contextual explanation of jury instruction sufficiency)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990) (caution against overreading single instruction)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (per curiam on prejudicial effect of instructional error)