98. HURTADO VS.
CALIFORNIA, 110 US 516, 536 (1884)
Topic: Due Process as Procedural Fairness
Petitioner: Joseph Hurtado (accused)
Respondent: State of California
FACTS:
Joseph Hurtado discovered that his wife, Susie, was having an affair with their friend, José
Antonio Estuardo. Hurtado took measures to put an end to the affair such as temporarily sending
his wife away to live with her parents. But after his wife had returned, their affair resumed.
Sometime afterward, after an incident of assault between Hurtado and Estuardo and a court
hearing for the same, Hurtado waited for Estuardo in a saloon where he fatally shot the latter.
In February 1882, the district attorney of Sacramento County, California, charged Joseph Hurtado
with murder. The district attorney brought the charge without any previous investigation by a grand
jury. According to Article 1 Section 8 of the California State Constitution at the time, "Offenses
heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after
examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination
and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at
least once a year in each county."
The Sacramento County judge examined the information and determined that Hurtado should be
brought to trial. Hurtado was arraigned in March 1882 and pleaded not guilty to murder in the first
degree. In June 1882, the Superior Court of Sacramento County rendered its judgment on the
verdict, that Hurtado be punished by death. Hurtado appealed to the California Supreme Court,
which affirmed the judgment. From this judgment, Hurtado appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hurtado argued that his constitutional right to due process was violated because he was never
indicted by a grand jury. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be held to answer for
a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ...
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Hurtado argued that this
provision of the Fifth Amendment is incorporated under the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and is therefore applicable to the states—in this case, California.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a state criminal proceeding based on an information, rather than a grand jury
indictment, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
RULING: NO.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hurtado’s conviction, ruling that prosecution by information did
not violate due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The words " due process of
law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily
require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder. Due process does
not mandate uniform procedures across all states and is not limited to the specific procedures
recognized in common law, such as the grand jury system. Instead, due process referred to
fundamental principles of justice, which could be achieved through other procedural means.
The Constitution of California authorizes prosecutions for felonies by information, after
examination and commitment by a magistrate, without indictment by a grand jury, in the discretion
of the legislature. California’s procedure provided adequate safeguards for the accused, including
the right to counsel, cross-examination, and a fair trial. Therefore, it did not deprive him of his
constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court further explained that the Fifth Amendment's requirement of a grand jury
indictment applies only to the federal government, not the states. The Fourteenth Amendment
says that no state "shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law," but it does not say anything about grand jury indictments. If the Fourteenth Amendment
made indictments a requirement of due process, "it would have embodied, as did the Fifth
Amendment, express declarations to that effect." One of the "fundamental principles of liberty and
justice... resides in the right of the people to make their own laws and alter them at their pleasure."
Thus, the state of California had a right to bring a charge of murder without a grand jury indictment.
The judgment of the California Supreme Court, that Hurtado be punished by death, was affirmed.
