Used to be that, instead of granting review and deferring action in a case raising a criminal law issue that was already before it in another matter, the Supreme Court would deny review, forcing the defendant to file a separate habeas corpus petition to take advantage of any favorable decision in the pending case. The court changed its policy two years ago and now regularly issues grant-and-hold orders in criminal cases as in civil cases. Today’s decision in In re Martinez is a remnant of the old policy.
The court’s opinion — by Justice Goodwin Liu, for himself and five other justices — grants habeas corpus relief to vacate a first degree murder conviction that was based on the defendant’s aiding and abetting a homicide committed by someone else. The reversal is required because the jury was improperly instructed it could convict if it found merely that the murder was a “natural and probable consequence” of the defendant’s conduct and because the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury relied on a different, legally valid theory.
The defendant raised the instructional error issue on his direct appeal, but he lost. When he petitioned the Supreme Court for review, the “natural and probable consequence” issue was before the court in another case, but that was before the grant-and-hold policy change, so the court denied review, albeit “without prejudice to any relief to which defendant . . . might be entitled after this court decides” the other case. Later, the court held in the other case — People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 — that a natural and probable consequences theory cannot be a basis for first degree murder.
Justice Leondra Kruger writes a separate concurring opinion to advocate for overruling 1942 and 1966 Supreme Court opinions regarding the standard of review in habeas corpus cases.
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal.
