People v. Bolden
58 P.3d 931, 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 802, 29 Cal.4th 515 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the required element of intent to kill for a felony-murder special circumstance is harmless error if the evidence of intent to kill is so overwhelming that the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict would have been the same absent the error.
Facts:
- On September 8, 1986, Henry Michael Pedersen met Clifford Stanley Bolden, who had advertised escort services, at a San Francisco bar.
- The two men were seen leaving the bar together and later a neighbor heard Pedersen return to his apartment with another person.
- Around 2:45 a.m., Bolden was seen walking from the direction of Pedersen's apartment carrying an athletic bag.
- The next day, Pedersen's body was found in his bathtub, wrapped in a bedspread; he had been stabbed to death.
- The cause of death was a single stab wound to the back, five to six inches deep, which penetrated the lung and spleen. There were no defensive wounds.
- Investigators found a couch cushion in Pedersen's living room saturated with blood and discovered Bolden's fingerprints on a wine bottle, a glass, and the bathtub.
- Upon his arrest on September 11, 1986, Bolden was carrying a knife stained with blood consistent with Pedersen's blood type.
- Bolden was also in possession of numerous items belonging to Pedersen, including a camera, binoculars, a wristwatch, and a bracelet engraved with Pedersen's initials.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court found Clifford Stanley Bolden guilty of first-degree murder and robbery.
- The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery.
- At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the same jury returned a verdict of death.
- The trial court denied the defendant's automatic motion to modify the penalty and imposed the death sentence.
- The defendant's appeal to the Supreme Court of California is automatic.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's failure to instruct the jury that intent to kill is a required element of a robbery-murder special circumstance, for a crime committed during the period when such intent was required, compel reversal of the special circumstance finding when the evidence of intent to kill is overwhelming?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
No. The trial court's failure to instruct the jury on intent to kill as an element of the robbery-murder special circumstance constitutes harmless error. The court acknowledged that because the murder occurred in 1986, during the 'window period' between 'Carlos v. Superior Court' and 'People v. Anderson', an instruction on intent to kill was required, and the court's failure to provide one was an error of federal constitutional dimension. However, the court held that such an error is subject to the harmless error analysis articulated in 'Chapman v. California'. Here, the evidence of intent to kill was overwhelming and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on the matter. The victim died from a single, deep stab wound to a vital area of the back, with no signs of a struggle, indicating an intentional killing rather than an accidental one. Therefore, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury's true finding on the special circumstance would have been the same even if the proper instruction had been given.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the 'Chapman' harmless error standard to instructional errors involving a required element of a special circumstance in a capital case. It affirms that even a significant constitutional error, such as the failure to instruct on a necessary mental state like intent to kill, does not automatically require reversal. The decision empowers appellate courts to uphold a jury's special circumstance finding if the factual record overwhelmingly supports the omitted element, thereby preventing convictions from being overturned on technical grounds when the defendant's culpability is clear. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to succeed on appeal due to instructional errors if the evidence against them regarding that element is exceptionally strong.
