Opinion ID: 412129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: jury instructions--shifting the burden of proof

Text: 39 Petitioner argues that under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and Mason v. Balkcom, 669 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1260, 75 L.Ed.2d 487 (1983), the trial court's jury instructions on intent and malice impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defense. During the course of its charge to the jury the court instructed that intent may be inferred from the proven circumstances or by acts and conduct, or it may be presumed when it is the natural and necessary consequence of the act. Even if this charge, in isolation, were impermissible, reversal would not be compelled. The petitioner would have to show that the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). The instruction should be considered in light of the entire jury charge and the entire trial. Lamb v. Jernigan, 683 F.2d 1332, 1339 (11th Cir.1982). 40 Immediately preceding the portion of the charge in question the court had instructed the jury that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty; that a person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention; that the state must prove the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt; that intent must be found from the evidence produced at trial; and that circumstantial evidence alone would not justify a finding of guilt unless the circumstances are entirely consistent with the defendant's guilt, are wholly inconsistent with any reasonable theory of the defendant's innocence and are so convincing as to exclude a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. These prior instructions make it unlikely that the jury interpreted the challenged instruction on intent to be an impermissible burden-shifting or conclusive presumption. Id. Moreover, the challenged instruction by itself was not unconstitutional. Unlike the invalidated charge in Sandstrom which stated that [t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his acts, Sandstrom, supra, 442 U.S. at 513, 99 S.Ct. at 2453, this charge said that intent ... may be presumed. Rather than being a conclusive presumption, one that a reasonable juror would interpret as requiring an inference of intent, this presumption was permissive. A reasonable jury could only interpret this language as permitting the inference described--they were allowed to draw the inference, but they were not obligated to do so. Lamb v. Jernigan, supra, 683 F.2d at 1339-40; see Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2224, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979); United States v. Gaines, 690 F.2d 849, 853-54 (11th Cir.1982). 41 The court's instruction on malice was also valid. Reading from the statutory definition, the court told the jury that: Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 26-1101(a) (1976). This instruction tells the jury that a finding of malice may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence. It does not relieve the prosecution from its burden of proving malice beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the court's explicit prior directions about circumstantial evidence, we find no error in the court's instruction on malice. Lamb v. Jernigan, supra, 683 F.2d at 1340.IX. EXCLUSION OF MITIGATING EVIDENCE 42 Hance's testimony in response to questions from his standby attorney was the only evidence presented in his behalf during the sentencing phase of the trial. At one point counsel stated: You told us just yesterday that you didn't kill these girls. After Hance responded that he did not kill them, the prosecutor objected because, that issue has been decided, it's over and behind us, it cannot be in mitigation from punishment at this time. Counsel explained to the judge that Hance's thoughts around the subject are relevant. He expressed concern that the jury would consider in aggravation the fact that he denied doing something they decided he did. He indicated that his questioning was to allow the jury to consider his emotions for denying this crime in mitigation. The judge allowed the questioning to proceed. Hance was then asked if he believed that he had killed the girls, if he recalled having killed the girls, if he was speaking to the court sincerely during his trial and if he believed his testimony had been true. At this point the prosecutor objected and the court sustained the objection, directing counsel not to follow this line of questioning. 43 Petitioner claims that by sustaining the prosecutor's objection the court prevented the jury from considering relevant mitigating evidence, thereby violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as interpreted in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 874-76, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), and Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). 13 We find it significant that petitioner has never proffered any evidence that he was precluded from presenting. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the line of questioning that was objected to would have continued. Apparently, petitioner was trying to show the jury his reasons for pleading innocent. The questions that he was allowed to answer were sufficient for this purpose. Petitioner has failed to make out a constitutional violation. 44