Per curiam: Hedgpeth v. Pulido
“The United States Supreme Court issued one decision today. In Hedgpeth v. Pulido, the Court issued a per curiam decision, with 3 justices dissenting as to the remand, in which it held that a conviction based on jury instructions containing more than one theory of guilt, where one theory is invalid, is to be judged under the harmless error standard. The Ninth Circuit had found the error to be structural error.” [via Harmful Error]
From that opinion:
A conviction based on a general verdict is subject tochallenge if the jury was instructed on alternative theories of guilt and may have relied on an invalid one. See Strom-berg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931); Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957). In this case the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that such an error is“structural error,” requiring that the conviction be set aside on collateral review without regard to whether the flaw in the instructions prejudiced the defendant. The parties now agree that the Court of Appeals was wrong tocategorize this type of error as “structural.” They furtheragree that a reviewing court finding such error should ask whether the flaw in the instructions “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree as well and so hold.
