Opinion ID: 1959682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: conclusion

Text: The judgment is affirmed. PRICE and LIMBAUGH, JJ., and BARNEY, Sp.J., concur. WOLFF, J., dissents in separate opinion filed; LAURA DENVIR STITH, C.J., and TEITELMAN, J., concur in opinion of WOLFF, J. BRECKENRIDGE, J., not participating. MICHAEL A. WOLFF, Judge, dissenting. Legal procedure, including burden of proof, may not `seem' that interesting to most people. But to Ernest Johnson, how the Court allocates the burden of proof is the difference between life and death. This Court in Johnson v. State, 102 S.W.3d 535 (Mo. banc 2003) ( Johnson III, ) determined that Johnson would not be subject to the death penalty if he could prove by a preponderance of evidence at a new sentencing phase trial that he is mentally retarded. The defendant in Johnson III did not raise the issue of allocation of the burden of proof in his points relied on, nor did the state, address it. The allocation of the burden of proof to the defendant was made by this court in the absence of statutory mandate and without considering the constitutional question presented here. I therefore consider the question of allocating the burden of proof to be open for full consideration in this appeal. The Court's decision in Johnson III was intended to implement the principle established in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), which held that it is unconstitutional for a mentally retarded person to be executed. In so holding, the Supreme Court of the United States in Atkins left to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon their execution of sentences. 536 U.S. at 317, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 416-417, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986)). This passage from Atkins is in a paragraph of the opinion that deals with how mental retardation is defined. [1] Nowhere in the opinion is there a discussion of which party should bear the burden of proving mental retardation or by what standard it should be proved. Some states include the burden of proof in the statute that supplies the definition. [2] Missouri's statute, section 565.030.6 [3] , does not. Another subdivision, section 565.030.4(1), does provide that life imprisonment shall be assessed [i]f the trier finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is mentally retarded. The statute does not specify whether the state or the defendant has the burden of proof on the issue. Missouri's definition of mental retardationenacted before Atkins but consistent with the Supreme Court's decision to leave the definition to the statessays mental retardation is [a] condition involving substantial limitations in general functioning characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning with continual extensive related deficits and limitations in two or more adaptive behaviors such as communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work, which conditions are manifested and documented before eighteen years of age, Section 565.030.6. Johnson's counsel argues that the state should have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson is not retarded in order for him to be subject to the death penalty. Johnson's argument is based on Ring Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), in which the Court said that when the state makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact . . . must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 536 U.S. at 602, 122 S.Ct. 2428. The principal opinion in this case takes the position that the absence of mental retardation is not an element for the purpose of showing eligibility for the death penalty under Ring . Under this interpretation the state is not, therefore, required to prove the defendant's lack of mental, retardation beyond a reasonable doubt. While the principal opinion's decision is consistent with the views of some other states [4] , it seems inconsistent with Ring .