Document: 471 U.S. 307 105 S.Ct. 1965 85 L.Ed.2d 344 Robert FRANCIS, Warden, Petitionerv.Raymond Lee FRANKLIN. No. 83-1590. Argued Nov. 28, 1984. Decided April 29, 1985. Syllabus Respondent state prisoner, while attempting to escape after receiving treatment at a local dentist's office, shot and killed the resident of nearby house with stolen pistol when, moment slammed front door as respondent demanded key resident's car, fired bullet pierced hitting in chest. was tried Georgia Superior Court on charge malice murder. His sole defense lack requisite intent kill, claiming that killing an accident. The trial judge instructed jury issue follows: "The acts person sound mind discretion are presumed be product person's will, but presumption may rebutted. A is intend natural probable consequences his will not act criminal intention trier facts . find upon consideration words, conduct, demeanor, motive all circumstances connected for which accused prosecuted." also innocent State required prove every element offense beyond reasonable doubt. returned guilty verdict, sentenced death. After unsuccessful appeal Supreme exhausting postconviction remedies, sought habeas corpus relief Federal District Court. That court denied relief, Appeals reversed, holding could have been interpreted by juror mandatory shifted burden persuasion offense, accordingly violated Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees set forth Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 510, 99 2450, 61 39. Held: instruction intent, when read context whole, Amendment's requirement supra. Pp. 313-327. (a) creates whereby must infer fact if proves certain predicate violates Due Process Clause it relieves offense. If specific portion charge, considered isolation, reasonably understood creating such presumption, potentially offending words whole. 313-315. (b) Here, first two sentences created once had proved acts. informed "may rebutted" does cure infirmity since, combined immediately preceding language, telling kill consequence firing unless persuaded inference unwarranted. 315-318. (c) general instructions prosecution's respondent's innocence did dissipate error challenged because necessarily inconsistent language intent. Nor more "criminal intention" following provide sufficient corrective, since well directed another murder Georgia—the absence provocation or justification. is, thought related different elements crime were therefore contradictory—that he presume But even applying no than contradict instructions. Language merely contradicts explain constitutionally infirm suffice absolve infirmity. 318-325. (d) Whether can ever harmless, constitutional this harmless plainly overwhelmingly evidence. 325-326. 720 F.2d 1206 (CA11 1983) 723 770 1984), affirmed. Susan V. Boleyn, Atlanta, Ga., petitioner. Ronald J. Tabak, New York City, respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion 1 This case requires we decide whether prosecution charged only contested satisfy principles 39 (1979). Specifically, evaluate stating that: (1) "[t]he (2) "[a] rebutted." App. 8a-9a. question these instructions, violate See Sandstrom, supra; In re Winship, 397 358, 364, 90 1068, 1072, 25 368 (1970). 2 * Raymond Franklin, then 21 years old imprisoned offenses unrelated case, custody January 17, 1979, three other prisoners dental care office. four secured handcuffs same 8-foot length chain they sat waiting room. At some point Franklin released from chain, taken into office given preliminary treatment, escorted back As prisoner being released, who reshackled, seized one officers managed escape. He forced assistant accompany him hostage. 3 parking lot found automobile, keys before escaping, unable unlock door. fled refusing her request free. out across open clearing came resident. car. When responded own one, made effort harm continued until home victim, Collie. pounded heavy wooden Collie, retired 72-year-old carpenter, answered. pointing Collie arrived. car keys, Franklin's gun went off. traveled through Collie's chest him. Seconds later again. second upward ceiling residence. 4 Hearing shots, victim's wife entered confusion accompanying shooting, attempt stop her. house, wife, added threat "I might you." she however, thwart stepped outside encountered adult daughter. repeated demand daughter refused fled. Failing obtain left remained large nightfall. 5 Shortly captured, formal statement authorities admitted victim emphatically so voluntarily intentionally. claimed shots accidental response slamming Bibb County, Georgia, charges murder1—a capital Georgia—and kidnaping. kill. To support version events offered substantial circumstantial evidence tending show surrounding gun, particularly trajectory bullet, supported hypothesis accident, immediate confession effect buttressed assertion. argued during indicated disposition use force. 6 On dispositive 7 "A violation statute there shall union joint operation omission act, negligence. any committed misfortune accident where satisfactorily appears scheme undertaking facts, Jury, 8 Approximately hour received deliberation, courtroom requested reinstruction definition Id., 13a-14a. Upon reinstruction, deliberated 10 minutes verdict guilty. next day death conviction. 9 unsuccessfully appealed conviction sentence State, 245 Ga. 141, 263 S.E.2d 666, cert. denied, 447 930, 100 3029, 65 1124 (1980). relief. Zant, Habeas Corpus File 5025 (Super.Ct.Butts Cty., Sept. 10, 1981), 456 938, 102 1995, 72 458 (1982). Having exhausted federal pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254, United States Middle May 14, 1982. application without evidentiary hearing. 16a. Eleventh Circuit. reversed ordered writ issue. (1983). held defendant For reason ran afoul fundamental explicated F.2d, 1208-1212. denying petitioner Francis' subsequent petition rehearing, panel elaborated its earlier make clear 770, 771-772 (1984) (per curiam). 11 We granted certiorari. 467 1225, 104 2677, 81 873 (1984). affirm. II 12 "protects against except proof doubt necessary constitute charged." U.S., S.Ct., 1073. "bedrock, 'axiomatic elementary' [constitutional] principle," id., 363, prohibits using presumptions relieving essential crime. supra, 520-524, 2457-2459; Patterson York, 432 197, 210, 215, 97 2319, 53 281 (1977); Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 698-701, 95 1881, 1889-1890, 44 508 (1975); see Morissette States, 342 246, 274-275, 240, 255, 96 L.Ed 288 (1952). prohibition protects "fundamental value determination our society," voice Harlan's concurrence "it far worse convict man let go free." 372, 1077. Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525-526, 78 1332, 1341-1342, 1460 (1958). almost identical Sandstrom: "whether enunciated Winship critical mind," 521, 2458, 13 analysis straightforward. threshold inquiry ascertaining applicable kind determine nature describes." 514, 2454. 2457-2459, permissive inference, Ulster County Allen, 140, 157-163, 2213, 2224-2227, 60 777 instructs facts.2 suggests possible conclusion drawn require draw conclusion. 14 Mandatory measured standards elucidated Sandstrom. Such relieve 2329 ("[A] ingredient shift presuming offense"). 1889-1890.3 still convince suggested should inferred based proved. inferences do implicate concerns common sense justify light proven jury. Court, 2224-2227. 15 Analysis focus initially challenged, end there. Other particular extent unconstitutional presumption. Cupp Naughten, 414 147, 94 396, 400, 38 (1973). "requires careful attention actually spoken , has accorded rights depends way instruction." A. 16 levels attack charge: 8a-9a.4 comports Skrine 244 520, 260 900, 901 question, what declares meaning be, rather meaning. 516-517, 2455 (state "is final authority interpretation instruction"). 17 cast command. They instruct "acts will," acts," 8a-9a (emphasis added). These carry precisely message condemned 515, 2454 (" 'The law presumes intends ordinary voluntary acts' "). jurors "were told choice, conclusion; it. It easily viewed mandatory." Ibid. directs offense—intent kill—upon offense—the slaying another. "undermine factfinder's responsibility trial, adduced ultimate doubt." 156, 2224 18 here differs course, explicitly makes much additional aspect seeking differentiate present distinction suffice, charge. Though acknowledged irrebuttable 517, 2455, basis alone invalidated. Had rebuttable would less infirm. 2457-2459. 19 An conclusive removing entirely facts. remove nonetheless affirmative instructing persuades finding. perhaps onerous defendant's perspective, unconstitutional. Our cases "[s]uch shifting respect deems important either impermissible under Clause." 2329. Wilbur 1889-1890. And similarly 524, 2459.5 20 very bore underlying giving rise Standing alone, undeniably burden-shifting B jury, hear sentences. whole explained proper allocation burdens clarity ambiguity persuasion. argues clarifying exists case. particular, relies doubt.6 points reads: intention. ." 9a. 22 State's "rhetorically presumption," sets indicating means satisfied." 518-519, n. 7, 2456, 7. thus that, although doubt, constituted otherwise. Cf. 703, 31, 1891, 31. 23 sentences—"A prosecuted," 9a—provide corrective. all, statutory aforethought. Ga.Code Ann. 16-5-1 (formerly 26-1101(a) (1978)). Under aforethought comprises elements: 239 409, 416-417, 238 2, Lamb Jernigan, 683 1337 1982) (interpreting 16-5-1), 460 1024, 103 1276, 75 496 court, consistently understanding law, "the unlawful, deliberate human justification mitigation excuse." 10a. 24 presumed" intended permitted Whatever court's motivation instruction, certainly way. trying juxtaposition "a intention," 9a, provocation.7 Even sentence. resolved contradiction choosing abide ignore Nothing contradictory carries weight other. reviewing knowing irreconcilable applied reaching their verdict.8 .is 8a-9a, followed "this somewhat stronger argument defendant. ("[G]iven qualifying legal cannot discount possibility instruction" manner). Corn 708 549, 559 1983), 1220, 2670, 375 explanatory sufficient, pertained quandary follow contradicted.9 26 Because portions crucial error, hold comport requirements Clause. III 27 Petitioner fails overturn record. erroneous shifts harmless. Connecticut Johnson, 73, 969, 74 823 need resolve conducted harmless-error concluded deemed 1212. noted: "[Franklin's] preclude defense. coincidence door, shot's failure hit anyone, take path injury anyone else completely eliminated 'no intent.' harmless." 29 standard proposed dissenting Justices 97, 5, 973, (evidence "so say unnecessary rely presumption") (POWELL, J., joined BURGER, C.J., REHNQUIST O'CONNOR, JJ., dissenting), surely correct.10 jury's 13a-14a, lends further substance overwhelming affirm well. IV 30 Montana making prosecution. 2457. Today reaffirm rule wellspring principle drawn. faithfully correctly rule, judgment 31 Affirmed. 32 POWELL, dissenting. 33 (1979), acts" process. invalidated interpret "an direction convinced triggering presumption" "as actions contrary quantum considerably greater 'some' evidence—thus effectively intent." 2456 (original emphasis). Either interpretation, held, relieved proving 2457; (1975). 34 Unlike susceptible interpretation. "irrebuttable direction," conclude believes infirm: 35 36 I agree "[s]tanding alone," Ante, 318 stand alone. small part lengthy parts clarify Although states rest juror, overlooks misinterprets several believe, prevented imposing 146-147, (1973), satisfies 37 repeatedly impressed both guilt stated: "[T]he count ". If, your wavering, unsettled, satisfied, rests mind, duty give benefit acquit 40 "Now, enters favor remains throughout overcome sufficiently strong you moral certainty 41 42 Ladies Gentlemen, material allegation each indictment further, anything. State. 43 "Members if, evidence, satisfied established 4a-12a. 45 noted 518, insufficient themselves typical generality reiterated imposed addition, "presumption [the defendant] trial," 5a, "there State," 8a. 46 More suspect appeared paragraph 47 48 clearly tells place holds effect. term refers "absence justification," ante, 320, separate Despite largely term] way." strained neither logical nor justified.* 49 ensured switched Three times base finding "exclude[d] hypothesis, save [accused's] guilt. 6a. excluded acted unintentionally. placed excluding impossible impose itself. 50 Together, believe innocence, presumed, governing removed danger believed dissent. 51 REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, 52 (1970), bench warrant preponderance outcome turned Constitution Winship's adjudication aside. aside conviction, concludes pages allowing return establishing reaches result though admonished least instead examining seems bent piling syllogism someone understand few allow fine parsing state-court anything Constitution. 54 Today's decision needlessly extends conclusively law. assuming singled conceivably mislead, reading "in overall charge," possibly arrive Court's occurred here. disagree standard, finds manner. approach like zealous lawyer attaining "reasonable juror" referred 55 acts." supplied). above quite "once having [Sandstrom's] voluntary, automatically directing 515-516, 2455. undertaken intentionally—i.e., "purposely knowingly"—and mandated regardless contrary. 56 on, discuss constitutionality "did establish opined lacked 2459 (citing (1975)). footnote stated "mandatory cured 519, 57 here—which rebutted"—are eliminates altogether; indicates relevant, shown exist. Nevertheless, latter opinion, outlined above, precedent dictating result. 316-317, 319. relied manifestly dicta, inasmuch already 58 accepts dicta face value, listening whole" disproving Before convoluted reasoning leads conclusion, useful relevant heard them, scattered pieces opinion. began explaining innocence: 59 entitled just implies. It's reason. [A] fair-minded, impartial actively truth arise conflict hand, equally yet 62 concerning evaluation witness credibility, again instructions: 63 64 "Now definitions Criminal Code Georgia. (Emphasis supplied.) 66 Count I, charging kidnaping nurse, murder: 67 defines commits unlawfully aforethought, express implied, causes being. Express away life fellow creature manifested external capable proof. Malice implied considerable abandoned malignant heart. 68 II, exist alleged homicide ill hatred; excuse, time killing. 69 encumbent malice, shows excuse homicide. produce mitigation, you, members Jury case." 70 dealt challenge "every speak truth," presented witnesses. reaffirmed well-established proposition single judged artificial charge." 400 Boyd 271 104, 107, 442, 443, L.Ed. 857 (1926)). ask ailing itself infected entire resulting process." 400. process, fully pointed truthfulness accompanied assessing witness' credibility attentive manner words. allowed exercise truthfulness; undue pressure rebut testimony, rebuttal founded 149, 401. 71 meaningful between bar. Here early detailed discussion judges taking account incident issue, existed jurors' acquit. Four prior identified anything." Immediately "will act. Georgia's includes excuse. Again, incumbent homicide." nevertheless concludes, entirety, mean introducing acts—drawing, aiming, gun—the "natural consequences" question; disprove kill; (3) introduced unconvinced them 73 lawyer, indeed difficult jurors" arrived own. runs this. First, sentences, 318. proceeds examine militate understanding. casually dismisses "general persuasion," relying Pausing moment, note am sure expository fast footwork where, unlike conclusive, rebuttable. Since "rebuttable," obvious is: "rebuttable what?" assume satisfying rebutted italicized included means—for example, incident—then fails. assumption unrealistic event, posits reached Undaunted, mention Instead, dispose With speculates directed, "intent" Thus, explains reconciled apparently conflicting deciding "that provocation." 321. 76 defies belief. Passing problem "intent," "justification provocation," hearing neatly attributing "malice"—no feat laymen—and malice. qualities average lawyers, perversely reads "looking-glass charge" which, mirror, opposite direction.1 77 Alternatively, dealing flatly contradictory, defective followed. reasoned regard: "Nothing infirmity." 322. 79 technical together standpoint, tortured me path. think conscientious, disregard troublesome instructions; generally strive charged. 324-325, 9. Rather, simply juror," requiring element. 80 reach statements—that anything, intent" "reasonable" available. Throughout listen conclusions, demeanor sense. rested drawing various conclusions Cupp, acts, consistent tone start finish. McInerney Berman, 621 20, (CA1 1980) ("[I]t [a juror] isolate ascribe importance rest"). Perhaps importantly, isolated disposed elsewhere addresses cures instruction. 322-323, 8. squared emphasized failed true problems raised probably alleviated changed presumed," thereby permissive, 316; 1339-1340 1982); McInerney, 24, admittedly establishes easier appellate courts. question. implicates problems, hypertechnical arguments highlight how strayed norm fairness" order invalidate 82 accepting reasonable-juror test, apart standard. reverse hypothetically unconstitutionally proof, unlikely likely found. Where involving Otherwise risk record finely crimes really Winship. inject protect defendants. dissent Appeals. provided: heart." (1978). removes 517-518, 2455-2456, production Clause, Intent (1977). REHNQUIST'S suggestion "extends" post, 332, inaccurate. valid alternative rationales: petitioner's mind. interpretations result, represents error." 2458 definitively York: "Mullaney defendant; Thus referring "such impermissible." read: hands 4a. 5a. divergent about justification, reproves 'looking-glass charge' direction." Post, 340. initial room One expect most juror's reflection occur deliberative stage circumstances, confusing reference obviously marshals argue misunderstood paragraphs Indeed purportedly 336 (REHNQUIST, quoting puzzling thinks "defies belief" suggest 339. quoted clear, specifically spoke intent: "Malice killing." dissenting). Finally, dissent's representation "express statemen[t] malice," 340, misleading. naturally implying mitigating exacerbates potential invalid likely" 342. Apparently "at test met unconstitutionally, long "more 'reasonable' " 340-341. Apart suggesting lead leaves distressingly undefined. faced respecting intuit, "tone" ibid., provides review Its malleability generate results compound plagued area incentive courts weed innocence" boilerplate supply reasons, promises courts, including unending stream ad hoc decisions Most bedrock principles. today intent—one imparts persuasion—create likelihood manner, eliminate possibility. exists, "we convicted 526, 2460. reason, settled Stromberg California, 283 359, 532, 1117 (1931), Leary 395 6, 31-32, 89 1532, 1545-1546, (1969); Bachellar Maryland, 564, 571, 1312, 1316, 570 principle; notwithstanding decided uphold impressionistic intuitive Rejecting "simply do[es] believe" paid close perplexed 528, 2461 concurring) ("I continue doubts attentively attuned divined difference recognized lawyers 'infer' 'presume' degree pay vary attentiveness help See, e.g., Parker Randolph, 62, 2132, 2139, 713 (1979) (opinion J.) ("A system [of jury] juries judge. Were so, pointless improperly instructed. [A]n consider codefendant's extrajudicial source avoid confrontation right implicated defendant"); 75, 2140, ("The 'rule'—indeed, premise trials functions American judicial system—is trusted instructions"). Wainwright Witt, 469 412, 844, 83 841 (1985). jurors, conscious gravity task, attend closely understand, of, them. Cases prejudice inhering put great limiting adequately rights. E.g., Bruton 391 123, 88 1620, 476 (1968); Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 908 (1964). Absent extraordinary situations, adhere carefully Chief Traynor said: "[W]e concept fair encompasses tribunal issues R. Traynor, Riddle Harmless Error 73-74 (1970) (footnote omitted), 85, 977, (1983) BLACKMUN, J.). primary task appeals ensure undertook thorough decision. 102, 985 dissenting) (harmless appropriately below"). term's precludes describing discussing one. offers why charged—malice especially crime—kidnaping—was described paragraphs. shorthand "intention negligence," traditional mens rea requirement. view, informs whatever rea. "[Alice] puzzled over time, last bright struck 'Why, it's Looking-glass book, course! And, up glass, again.' L. Carroll, Through Looking-Glass, 19-20 (1950).

Category: 0