Opinion ID: 789280
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Merits of Sanders's Due Process Claim

Text: 25 With the waiver and fair presentment issues resolved, we now address the merits of Sanders's due process claim. Sanders contends that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury as to the State's burden of proving the element of the absence of sudden heat violates his federal due process rights because the jury could have convicted him of murder and attempted murder without finding that the State proved each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Sanders also challenges the erroneous manslaughter instructions that included the presence of sudden heat as an element. 26 Indiana law, currently and at the time of Sanders's trial, requires the prosecution to prove the absence of sudden heat to convict a defendant of murder or attempted murder once the defendant has introduced some evidence that he or she committed the crime under sudden heat. McBroom, 530 N.E.2d at 728. Three years before Sanders's trial, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that if the jury instruction on murder did not include an element requiring the prosecution to prove the absence of sudden heat and the trial court refused a proposed jury instruction that explains that the State must negate the presence of sudden heat beyond a reasonable doubt, then the trial court committed reversible error, necessitating a new trial. Harrington v. State, 516 N.E.2d 65, 66 (Ind.1987). The Indiana courts have held that the action of the trial court in refusing the tendered instruction left the jury without any instruction as to who bore the burden of proof concerning sudden heat or the absence thereof. Joshua v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1202, 1203 (Ind.1990). Without the proper instructions, the jury may have believed [the defendant] had to prove he acted in sudden heat, rather than that the State had to negate its existence. Harrington, 516 N.E.2d at 66. 27 In Sanders's case, the Indiana appellate court held that any error in the manslaughter instruction was rendered harmless by the instruction that sudden heat is a mitigating circumstance that reduces what otherwise would be murder ... to voluntary manslaughter. The appellate court's analysis was incomplete, though, because it did not address Sanders's argument that without Proposed Instruction Two the jury would have no reason to know that the absence of sudden heat was an element of murder and attempted murder that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 28 The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), and 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, Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 704, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975). We have explained that the complete failure to give any jury instruction on an essential element of the offense charged, under circumstances indicating that the jury was not otherwise informed of the necessity of proof of the element, is a violation of due process. Cole v. Young, 817 F.2d 412, 423 (7th Cir.1987). 29 Here, the jury instructions do not contain any statement that properly places the burden of proof on the State for showing the absence of sudden heat to gain a murder conviction. Rather, the only time the jury instructions mention the burden of proof for sudden heat is in the manslaughter instructions, where they erroneously require the State to prove the presence of sudden heat. Without Proposed Instruction Two, the jury was never informed of each of the required elements of the government's proof for murder and attempted murder, and if the jury was not required to find Sanders guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all the elements of murder and attempted murder, he did not receive the protections of federal due process. The Indiana appellate court's reliance on the manslaughter instructions' mitigation language to correct the erroneous instructions was unreasonable because advising the jury that sudden heat is a mitigating factor does nothing to inform it that the absence of sudden heat is an element of murder or attempted murder and that it is the prosecution that bears the burden of proof. 30 The Respondent argues that the Indiana appellate court made a reasonable determination that the erroneous instructions, when read as a whole with the other instructions, fully apprised the jury that under Indiana law, sudden heat is a factor that could reduce murder to manslaughter. Instructing the jury that sudden heat is a mitigating factor did not inform them that it was something that the State had to disprove, rather they were left ignorant of which side bore the burden of proof. Harrington, 516 N.E.2d at 66. It is just as reasonable for someone to assume that acting under sudden heat is like the affirmative defense of insanity, where the burden of proof is on the defendant. See Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1148 (Ind.2004). The jury instructions not only failed to properly state the burden of proof, but affirmatively misstated it when the manslaughter instructions included the element of proving the existence of sudden heat. 31 The Respondent also argues that any error in the jury instructions was harmless because Sanders was not entitled to the manslaughter instructions. However, the Respondent did not make this argument in the district court, so it is waived. Jenkins v. Nelson, 157 F.3d 485, 494 n. 1 (7th Cir.1998). While we can overlook the Respondent's failure to argue harmless error, we generally do so only when the harmlessness of the error or errors found is certain and a reversal would result in protracted, costly, and ultimately futile proceedings in the district court. United States v. Giovannetti, 928 F.2d 225, 227 (7th Cir.1991). Even if the Respondent had not waived its harmlessness argument, the argument would fail because the jury heard testimony that Sanders was provoked into a sudden rage when Pratchett flirted with another and, if you believe Sanders's testimony, when Pratchett threw their son out the car window. Compare Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170, 1178 (Ind.1992) (bank foreclosing on family farm was not sufficient provocation to warrant a jury instruction on sudden heat in defendant's murder of his wife); Gregory v. State, 540 N.E.2d 585, 593 (Ind.1989) (holding that jury could reasonably have rejected defendant's claim of sudden heat when he had threatened to kill the victim three weeks earlier); with Jimmerson v. State, 751 N.E.2d 719, 725 (2001) (affirming voluntary manslaughter conviction because jury reasonably found defendant was acting under sudden heat after he was forced to give victim money 20 minutes before he confronted victim and shot him); Callis v. State, 684 N.E.2d 233, 240 (1997) (affirming voluntary manslaughter conviction because jury reasonably found defendant was acting under sudden heat when he shot his girlfriend after she threatened suicide and they quarreled about the state of their relationship). Because a defendant is entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction if he presents any appreciable evidence of sudden heat, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to the State's burden was not harmless error. 32 Because the jury was never instructed that the absence of sudden heat was an element of murder and attempted murder that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, Sanders has established a violation of his federal due process rights. The Indiana appellate court's determination that the jury instructions as a whole correctly apprised the jury of all the elements of the crimes was an unreasonable determination because the jury was never informed that the absence of sudden heat is an element of murder and attempted murder on which the State bears the burden of proof and, in fact, was incorrectly instructed that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the presence of sudden heat to obtain a voluntary manslaughter conviction. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of Sanders's petition on the grounds of a federal due process violation.