811 F.3d 326
9th Cir.2016Background
- In 1987 Ronald Taylor and another man committed an attempted robbery during which the restaurant owner, Lewis Lim, was shot and killed; Taylor's palm print linked him to the getaway car.
- A jury convicted Taylor of first‑degree felony murder (predicated on attempted robbery) and found special‑circumstance and firearm‑use allegations true, leading to life without parole.
- After trial Taylor identified his cousin as the shooter; the state later concluded Taylor was the lookout, not the shooter, and sought to have the special‑circumstance and firearm findings vacated and Taylor resentenced as an aider and abettor (25 years to life).
- Taylor opposed resentencing, arguing the jury’s prior finding that he was the shooter meant it had not found him guilty as an aider and abettor (which requires proof of intent to aid), so resentencing violated his Sixth and Fifth Amendment rights.
- State courts resentenced Taylor; he sought federal habeas relief. A panel reversed; the Ninth Circuit reheard en banc and affirmed denial of habeas relief, holding Taylor had a fair trial and remained properly convicted of felony murder (the jury could have relied on aiding-and-abetting theory).
Issues
| Issue | Taylor's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing Taylor as an aider and abettor violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial | Jury’s earlier finding that Taylor was the shooter shows the jury did not, and could not, find him guilty as an aider and abettor; resentencing substitutes judge fact‑finding | Jury was instructed on both shooter and aiding‑and‑abetting theories; jurors may rely on different theories to convict; conviction for felony murder rested on elements the jury found | Denied — no Sixth Amendment violation; jury fairly convicted on elements of felony murder and could have relied on aiding‑and‑abetting theory |
| Whether vacatur of special‑circumstance findings required vacatur of the underlying felony murder conviction | Vacatur of shooter/firearm findings shows jury relied on a factually incorrect theory and therefore did not find the elements needed for aiding and abetting | Vacating special findings does not prove the jury rejected the aiding‑and‑abetting theory; sufficient evidence supports aiding/abetting guilt | Denied — vacating special findings does not negate the valid underlying felony murder conviction |
| Whether Taylor proved actual innocence entitling him to habeas relief | Evidence that Taylor was not the shooter shows factual innocence of the offense as resentenced | Even if not shooter, Taylor admitted participation and evidence supports culpability as aider/abetor; he did not prove innocence of felony murder | Denied — at best Taylor showed jury relied on an incorrect theory, not that he was factually innocent |
| Whether any constitutional error was structural or harmless | Error in relying on invalid factual theory requires reversal | Submission/consideration of an invalid theory is subject to harmless‑error analysis; no structural error shown | Denied — no structural error; any error would be subject to harmlessness and does not require relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (Supreme Court 1991) (jury may be presumed to have reached verdict on valid theory absent record showing to contrary)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (facts increasing punishment must be found by a jury)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court 1991) (jurors may rely on different theories to return a guilty verdict)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court 2005) (defendant’s admission about shooter status did not require withdrawal of plea where aiding‑and‑abetting liability remained)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (Supreme Court 1993) (discusses high threshold for freestanding actual innocence claims)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (Supreme Court 2013) (timeliness/actual innocence gateway language relevant to habeas)
- Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court 2008) (submission of an invalid legal theory alongside a valid one subject to harmless‑error review)
- Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting non‑structural nature of prosecutor presenting false evidence and applicability of harmless‑error review)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court 1991) (structural vs. harmless constitutional error framework)