Opinion ID: 453004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was there an impermissibly burden-shifting instruction

Text: 8 UNDER SANDSTROM? 2 ] 9 Brooks was charged in a four-count indictment, the first count of which was malice murder. Brooks argues that the trial judge's instruction regarding malice was impermissibly burden-shifting under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). The relevant part of the instruction reads as follows: 10 The law of the State of Georgia says that a person commits murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. 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, the law says, when no considerable provocation appears, and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. 11 The law, ladies and gentlemen, presumes every homicide to be malicious until the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification, and it is encumbent upon the accused to make out such circumstances to your satisfaction unless they appear from the evidence produced against him. 12 (Emphasis added). 3 This instruction, which placed upon the defendant the initial burden of disproving malice, is virtually identical to the one found impermissible in the recent en banc case of Davis v. Kemp, 752 F.2d 1515, 1519-20 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc). The analysis employed in our Davis opinion was recently confirmed by the similar analysis used by the Supreme Court in Francis v. Franklin, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985). The instruction here is a mandatory rebuttable presumption, as were the instructions found impermissible in Davis and Franklin. Davis, 752 F.2d at 1517-20; Franklin, --- u.s. at ---- - ----, ---- - ----, 105 s.ct. at 1970-1971, 1972-1973. We conclude that the instruction here impermissibly shifted the burden of proof with respect to malice, a necessary element of the murder charge against Brooks. 13 The state argues that the malice instruction, when read in conjunction with the entire jury charge, did not so infect the entire trial that the resulting conviction violate[d] due process. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973). The state's argument is a subtle one, and depends upon several building blocks. First, the state correctly notes that malice murder in Georgia is defined as an intentional killing done without provocation or justification. Lamb v. Jernigan, 683 F.2d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1024, 103 S.Ct. 1276, 75 L.Ed.2d 496 (1983). Second, the state argues that there was in this case no hint of provocation or justification, 4 so that the only sub-element of malice which might possibly have been in dispute was intent. Third, the state argues that a separate intent instruction was given, which properly instructed the jury that intent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances. 5 Thus, the state argues that the jurors would have understood the malice instruction to refer to the earlier intent charge for a definition of the intent component of malice; and, the argument continues, the improper burden-shifting presumption in the malice charge would have affected only the sub-issues of provocation and justification, and not the sub-issue of intent. 14 The problem with the state's argument is that the malice instruction does not either expressly or impliedly refer for a definition of intent to the earlier intent instruction. Moreover, the intent instruction appeared a full six pages prior to the malice instruction. 15 After a careful review of the malice instruction, in the context of the entire charge including the earlier intent instruction, we cannot discount the possibility that a reasonable jury could have understood the instructions to create an unconstitutional presumption of malice and its intent component. See Franklin, --- U.S. at ----, ---- n. 8, 105 S.Ct. at 1971, 1975 n. 8. 6 As the Supreme Court said in Sandstrom, we have no way of knowing that ... [the defendant] was not convicted on the basis of the unconstitutional instruction. Sandstrom, 442 U.S. at 526, 99 S.Ct. at 2460; accord, Franklin, --- U.S. at ----, 105 S.Ct. at 1975 n. 8. At best, the contradictory instructions as to intent and malice may have confused the jury as to the proper burden of proof. See Franklin v. Francis, 720 F.2d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir.1983), aff'd, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985) (--- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. at 1975: Nothing in these specific sentences or in the charge as a whole makes clear to the jury that one of these contradictory instructions carries more weight than the other. Language that merely contradicts and does not explain a constitutionally infirm instruction will not suffice to absolve the infirmity). 7 16 For the same reasons, we reject the state's argument that the unconstitutional malice instruction was cured by the general instructions establishing the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proving every element of the crime. This is the same argument that was expressly rejected by the Court in Franklin and Sandstrom. As the Supreme Court noted, the jury might have relied upon the improper burden-shifting presumption either as a means for rebutting the presumption of innocence, or as a means by which proof beyond a reasonable doubt could be satisfied. Franklin, --- U.S. at ----, 105 S.Ct. at 1973; Sandstrom, 442 U.S. at 518 n. 7, 99 S.Ct. at 2456 n. 7. 17 After a careful review of the entire jury charge, we find that a reasonable juror could well have concluded that Brooks bore the burden of proof on the necessary element of malice. We thus conclude that the instruction violates Sandstrom. 18