Opinion ID: 1296397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: THE IMPACT OF MULLANEY v. WILBUR, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975)

Text: It is impossible to consider instructions to which Pendry objected in this case without considering Mullaney. The Supreme Court of the United States enunciated therein constitutional doctrine which cannot be ignored. Without reference to the tortuous procedural course of the case prior to its final decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, Mullaney presented the question of the validity of a statute of the State of Maine which required a defendant charged with murder, which upon conviction carried a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, to prove that he acted in the heat of passion, on sudden provocation, without express or implied malice aforethought, in order to reduce the homicide to manslaughter, in which case it was provided that the punishment would be a fine or imprisonment not exceeding twenty years. The court defined its talk as that of deciding whether such a rule comported with the due process requirement, clearly established in In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. The Supreme Court's specific holding on the issue was . . . that the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of the heat of passion on sudden provocation when the issue is properly presented in a homicide case. 421 U.S. at 704, 95 S.Ct. at 1892, 44 L.Ed.2d at 522. The Supreme Court found that the Maine statute was constitutionally defective in that it affirmatively shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. In answer to the argument that to require the State to prove the absence of heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt would impose upon the State a requirement of proving a negative, the Supreme Court of the United States found that such a requirement was not unique in our system of criminal jurisprudence and imposed . . . no unique hardship on the prosecution that would justify requiring the defendant to carry the burden of proving a fact so critical to criminal culpability. 421 U.S. at 702, 95 S.Ct. at 1891, 44 L.Ed.2d at 522. A review of many court decisions [3] and much legal scholarship [4] indicates little agreement and considerable uncertainty regarding the full consequences of the decision in Mullaney. The precise bearing which Mullaney may have in a criminal case upon statutes or instructions which deal with defenses which may be available to a defendant or presumptions which may be indulged in has, by their admission, eluded all who have attempted to grapple with the constitutional concept pronounced. We freely admit that we cannot, in this case, undertake to discern the full impact of Mullaney upon all statutes, instructions and presumptions previously accepted as accurate statements of the law governing criminal cases in this State. We are content to say that Mullaney stands for the following general propositions: (1) In a criminal case, the State is required to carry the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every material element of the crime with which the defendant is charged; (2) In carrying its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the State is not entitled to an instruction which requires a jury to accept as proved beyond a reasonable doubt any element of the criminal offense charged, and this concept embraces presumptions (more properly inferences) as to which the jury may be instructed; and (3) A defendant in a criminal case cannot be required to present evidence either in terms of going forward with the evidence or in terms of bearing the burden of persuasion in connection with any material element of the crime charged. In West Virginia it has always been accepted that the State bears the ultimate burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every material fact necessary to the conviction of the defendant of the crime with which he is charged. Thus, Mullaney results in no change in our criminal law, evidence or procedure with reference to that concept. As to the defense of insanity, it is the clearly established rule in this State that the defendant is required to establish his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Myers, supra ; State v. McCauley, 130 W.Va. 401, 43 S.E.2d 454 (1947); and State v. Cook, 69 W.Va. 717, 72 S.E. 1025 (1911). Mullaney in no way requires any departure in this State from that well-defined and clearly established rule. The separate opinion of Mr. Justice Rehnquist in Mullaney, joined in by The Chief Justice, made it clear that there is no inconsistency between requiring the State to prove every element which constitutes the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and the imposition upon the defendant of the burden of proving insanity. The Supreme Court's prior holding on this issue in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952), was specifically referred to and it was pointed out that the Court found no constitutional impediment to a requirement that a defendant be required to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. We have not imposed any such requirement upon a defendant in this State. We only require that he prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Our theory is consistent with the eloquent dissent in Leland v. Oregon, supra , written by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, who was joined therein by Mr. Justice Black. In his dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, although disapproving of a requirement that a defendant be required to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, commented further, at 343 U.S. 804, 72 S.Ct. 1010, as follows: This does not preclude States from utilizing common sense regarding mental irresponsibility for acts resulting in homicidefrom taking for granted that most men are sane and responsible for their acts. That a man's act is not his, because he is devoid of that mental state which begets culpability, is so exceptional a situation that the law has a right to devise an exceptional procedure regarding it. Accordingly, States may provide various ways for dealing with this exceptional situation by requiring, for instance, that the defense of `insanity' be specially pleaded, or that he on whose behalf the claim of insanity is made should have the burden of showing enough to overcome the assumption and presumption that normally a man knows what he is about and is therefore responsible for what he does . . .. Both Mullaney and Leland indicate that the so-called insanity defense is one which is considered only after the State has presented evidence from which the jury could find all elements of the offense, including mens rea if required, as proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Other common defenses in West Virginia are likewise in our judgment free from constitutional infirmity under Mullaney. For example, the alibi defense as used in this State does not relieve the prosecution of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the actual presence of the accused at the time and place of the commission of the crime when personal presence is essential thereto. State v. Peterson, 132 W.Va. 99, 51 S.E.2d 78 (1948); State v. Aliff, 122 W.Va. 16, 7 S.E.2d 27 (1940); State v. Friend, 100 W.Va. 180, 130 S.E. 102 (1925); State v. Winans, 100 W.Va. 418, 130 S.E. 607 (1925); State v. Counts, 90 W.Va. 338, 110 S.E. 812 (1922); State v. Parsons, 90 W.Va. 307, 110 S.E. 698 (1922); and State v. Lowry, 42 W.Va. 205, 24 S.E. 561 (1896). Similarly, the defense of self-defense, although required to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, State v. Zannino, 129 W.Va. 775, 41 S.E.2d 641 (1947); State v. Coontz, 94 W.Va. 59, 117 S.E. 701 (1923); State v. Hatfield, 48 W.Va. 561, 37 S.E. 626 (1900); State v. Greer, 22 W.Va. 800 (1883); and State v. Cain, 20 W.Va. 679 (1882), does not relieve the State from the obligation to prove every material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. These and other defenses are not invalidated by Mullaney so long as the State is not relieved of the ultimate burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every material element of the crime. If a defendant is not put in the position of being required to rebut the State's case by the introduction of evidence, he cannot claim any constitutional infirmity. When, however, he elects to take advantage of any authorized defense under the law of this State, he may be required to carry a burden of going forward with the evidence and carrying a burden of persuasion to a degree not greater than by a preponderance of the evidence. The State is entitled to define the burden which he must carry if his particular defense is to be sustained, provided that this does not lessen the burden of the State to prove every material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney does have a considerable impact on the utilization of presumptions in criminal cases and has application to the case here on appeal in that connection. The entire law of presumptions has been characterized as a semanticist's nightmare. Indeed, the scholars on the subject have been unable to arrive at any generally accepted rule regarding what a presumption really is and what the different types of presumptions really are. There is no highway by which any of us can safely walk through conclusive presumptions, permissive presumptions and mandatory presumptions. As Justice Neely said in Roe v. M & R Pipeliners, Inc., W.Va., 202 S.E.2d 816, 820 (1973): Few areas of the law are as confusing or as hotly debated as the law of presumptions. As one text writer put it, `Every writer of sufficient intelligence to appreciate the difficulties of the subject matter has approached the topic of presumptions with the sense of hopelessness and has left it with a feeling of despair.' Morgan, `Presumptions' 12 Wash.L.Rev. 225 (1937). Because of the confusion in the entire law of presumptions, particularly in their applicability to procedural and evidentiary problems in the field of criminal law, it may be better to utilize inferences instead of presumptions and to provide that the jury may be permitted to infer a fact from a fact established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the jury cannot be instructed that it either must accept the inference or that it may accept the inference unless rebutted by evidence introduced by the defendant. The jury must be free to reject any presumption or inference unless it believes it is established from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a rule imposes no obligation on a defendant to introduce any proof, and is not, therefore, constitutionally defective. The Supreme Court of the United States itself has had difficulty with the entire matter of presumptions, particularly presumptions which have been imposed by statute. For example, tests which the United States Supreme Court has used when the constitutionality of presumptions under the due process clause has been challenged is the rational connection test, see Mobil, J.& K.C.R.R. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 31 S.Ct. 136, 55 L.Ed. 78 (1910), or the comparative convenience test, see Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 54 S.Ct. 281, 78 L.Ed. 664 (1934), which would seem to be a test used in connection with the rational connection test, see Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943); or the greater includes the lesser test, see Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88, 48 S.Ct. 443, 72 L.Ed. 796 (1928). These tests have not proved particularly satisfactory or clear. See e. g., Note, Constitutionality of Rebuttable Statutory Presumptions, 55 Colum.L.Rev. 527 (1955). They have certainly not defined the scope of constitutionally permissible presumptions. Most of these difficulties which have emerged from the confusion of the law on presumptions would be overcome if we first fully appreciated Mr. Justice Frankfurter's observation that the law does not preclude States from utilizing common sense, and then firmly adhered to the propositions that, in a criminal case, a defendant is presumed to be innocent, that such presumption can be overcome only by proof of all material facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and that even inferences of material facts, before they can be accepted by a jury, must be established in the minds of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.