Opinion ID: 557865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Charge on Intent

Text: 25 Cunningham argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court improperly charged the jury during the guilt phase that it could presume his intent to kill. Without conceding that the charge was unconstitutional, the state argues that the district court correctly determined that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 10 26 A jury charge which shifts the burden of proof on the issue of intent from the government to a defendant is unconstitutional. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). A conviction based on a Sandstrom violation may be upheld, however, if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986). This Court recognizes a Sandstrom error as harmless in two situations: (1) where the erroneous instruction was applied to an element of the crime that was not at issue in the trial, or (2) where the evidence as to defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Bowen v. Kemp, 832 F.2d 546, 548 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940, 108 S.Ct. 1120, 99 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988). 27 There can be little doubt that the charge on intent was unconstitutional under Sandstrom, supra, and Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985). 11 Accordingly, in order to ascertain whether the Sandstrom error was harmless, this Court must determine whether intent was at issue at the trial and, if so, whether evidence at trial overwhelmingly showed intent to kill. 28 Both intent and malice are essential elements of the crime of murder in Georgia. Stephens v. Kemp, 846 F.2d 642, 659 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872, 109 S.Ct. 189, 102 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988). Failure to dispute an essential element of the crime does not automatically remove the issue entirely from the jury's consideration, thereby rendering a Sandstrom error on the issue harmless. Id. at 660. Moreover, the state's principal evidence consisted of Cunningham's confessions. In these confessions, Cunningham stated that he had not intended to kill Crawford; rather, he meant only to knock him out with the wrench, take the money, and run. Although Cunningham did not testify, by introducing these statements into evidence the government placed Cunningham's intent in issue at trial. 29 The second question in the Sandstrom harmless error analysis is whether the evidence presented at Cunningham's trial overwhelmingly established his intent to kill. Medical testimony showed that the victim had been struck in the forearms and head with a pipe wrench at least eighteen times. This testimony suggested that the victim's forearms had been broken while he used them to protect his head and that the blows to the forearms alone would not have caused the victim's death. Lastly, the medical testimony showed that any one of approximately eight blows to the victim's head could have caused his death. The only evidence questioning Cunningham's intent was his statement in his confession that he intended to knock Crawford out but not to kill him. 30 In cases where this Court has refused to hold a Sandstrom error harmless, the defendant has presented substantially greater evidence to support his claim of lack of intent. In Thomas v. Kemp, 800 F.2d 1024 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1041, 107 S.Ct. 1982, 95 L.Ed.2d 822 (1987), the defendant claimed that his drug use prevented him from forming the requisite intent to commit murder. The defendant testified at trial about his drug use and supported his theory of defense with psychiatric testimony on the effect of drugs on the formation of intent. Id. at 1026. In Dick v. Kemp, 833 F.2d 1448 (11th Cir.1987), the defendant presented evidence that he was a chronic alcoholic and severely intoxicated at the time of the killing. Moreover, after the trial the defendant learned that he had been drugged by one of his fellow robbers. In light of the evidence that Cunningham struck the victim with the wrench at least eighteen times, with at least eight of those blows directly to the victim's head, we find the Sandstrom error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.