Facts of the Case

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. However, Pulido claimed that he was only involved in the robbery after the shooting had taken place. Pulido appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury instructions allowed a jury to convict him as an accomplice in the robbery and murder even if he only took part in the robbery, as he claimed.

The California Supreme Court refused to overturn the conviction, holding that the error was harmless because the jury had specifically found that Pulido aided the robbery during the murder. In seeking Supreme Court review, the California attorney general pointed out splits among the federal circuits and state supreme courts on this issue. Specifically noteworthy is a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision concluding, under similar facts, that an error in felony-murder instructions had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict under the habeas corpus harmless-error rule.

Question

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?

Conclusion

None