Smith v. Lopez, No. 12-55860 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murdering his wife, petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief, claiming that his constitutional right to adequate notice of the nature of the charges against him was violated when the trial court instructed the jury on aiding-and-abetting liability. The district court agreed and granted the petition. The court concluded that the prosecution's conduct affirmatively led petitioner to believe it would rely on an aiding-and-abetting liability theory. Thus, the aiding and abetting jury instruction violated petitioner's fundamental right to receive notice of the nature of the charges against him and have a meaningful opportunity to prepare a defense. Given the closely balanced evidence, the court could not say that the trial court's error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s conditional grant of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition claiming that petitioner was denied his right to notice of the nature of the accusations against him when the trial judge gave an aiding- and-abetting jury instruction. The panel explained that, although the criminal information charging petitioner with first-degree murder was initially sufficient to put him on notice that he could be convicted either as a principal or as an aider-and-abettor, the prosecution’s conduct throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings affirmatively led petitioner to believe that the prosecution would not rely on an aiding-and-abetting liability theory. The panel held that the aiding-and-abetting jury instruction, given only after the prosecution requested it at the jury instructions conference, violated petitioner’s right to notice of the nature of the charges against him, as well as the right to prepare a defense. The panel held that the error was not harmless.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.