Facts
- Joseph Hurtado was charged in California with the murder of José Antonio Stuardo/Estuardo.
- California initiated the prosecution by an information filed by the district attorney, not by grand jury indictment.
- Under California’s 1879 Constitution and statutes, an information could issue only after a magistrate’s examination and commitment.
- The preliminary examination occurred in Hurtado’s presence, with rights to counsel and cross-examination; testimony was reduced to written depositions.
- After the magistrate found sufficient cause, Hurtado was held to answer and the district attorney filed an information in a form similar to an indictment.
- Hurtado was tried by petit jury, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death.
- Hurtado argued that proceeding by information for a capital offense violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Issues
- Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires a state to initiate a capital (or serious felony) prosecution by grand jury indictment rather than by information.
- Whether the Fifth Amendment grand jury indictment requirement applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court’s judgment upholding Hurtado’s conviction and death sentence.
- The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states to prosecute by grand jury indictment.
- The Court concluded that California’s procedure—information after a judicial examination and commitment with specified protections—constituted due process of law.
- Justice Harlan dissented; Justice Field did not participate.
Legal Principles
- “Due process of law” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not necessarily include grand jury indictment in state criminal prosecutions.
- The Fifth Amendment’s explicit grand jury clause indicates that “due process” is not, by itself, synonymous with indictment; the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process language does not incorporate the Fifth Amendment indictment requirement.
- States may choose procedures for initiating felony prosecutions, including informations, so long as the method provides protections consistent with fundamental fairness.
- A pretrial magistrate examination with the accused present, counsel, cross-examination, and a finding of sufficient cause can satisfy due process as a substitute for indictment.
Conclusion
The Court held that a state may prosecute serious crimes by information rather than grand jury indictment without violating the Fourteenth Amendment, so long as the state procedure provides fair safeguards before trial; the Fifth Amendment grand jury requirement was not applied to the states through due process.