Opinion ID: 1351744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Early Wyoming Cases

Text: The history of the law of specific intent in our state has been rather tortuous. It began in 1898 in Bryant v. State, 7 Wyo. 311, 51 P. 879 and its denial of rehearing in 7 Wyo. at 318, 56 P. 596 (1899). The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder. In the rehearing opinion Chief Justice Potter says (56 P. at 597):    It may be that counsel understands our former opinion to disregard the principle of law that in cases of this character the specific intent must be proven as laid in the indictment or information. If so, he misinterprets the reasons given for our conclusion. We are well aware and in full accord with that doctrine which is well expressed in the case of Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401, cited by counsel, as follows: `When a statute makes an offense to consist of an act combined with a particular intent, that intent is just as necessary to be proved as the act itself, and must be found by the jury as matter of fact before a conviction can be had.    And in all such cases the particular intent charged must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury; and no intent in law, or mere legal presumption differing from the intent, in fact, can be allowed to supply the place of the latter.' That court, however, in the same case, held further that it was unnecessary to prove the specific intent by direct, positive, and independent evidence; but as the court remarked by quoting from one of its own earlier decisions, `The jury may draw the inference, as they draw all other inferences from any facts in evidence which to their minds, fairly prove its existence,'   . The court found sufficient evidence of circumstances and conduct of the defendant to affirm the conviction. In the last sentence of the opinion on rehearing the court said (56 P. at 597): The jury had all the facts before them, and were instructed that to make out the crime both the assault and intent must be proved. Ross v. State, 16 Wyo. 285, 93 P. 299, 305 (1908) followed Bryant. The defendant in Ivey v. State, 24 Wyo. 1, 154 P. 589, 591 (1916) was charged and found guilty of assault and battery with intent to commit murder: It is contended that the court committed error in giving the following instruction over defendant's objection and exception; viz.: `The court instructs the jury that a man is presumed in law to intend the probable and natural consequences of his own unlawful act. If one purposely shoots another with a deadly weapon, at or near a vital part, and in such a manner that death would probably ensue, all the other elements of the crime concurring, the jury would be justified in believing that the defendant intended to kill the prosecuting witness, even if death did not ensue.' The court held that it was error to give that instruction in that kind of a case, and said (154 P. at 591): The specific intent to kill must be proved as any other fact in the case, to the satisfaction of the jury. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the assault was made with the intention to accomplish that which actually resulted from the assault. But, where an assault is thus committed, but which does not result in death, there is no presumption that the assailant intended to kill; that is to say, the presumption arising from the character of the assault with reference to the intent with which it is committed goes only to the result accomplished, and there is no presumption that he intended to do more than was actually accomplished. So, where the charge is that an assault was made with the intent to kill, and when death did not ensue, it is error to charge the jury that the presumption is that he intended the natural and probable consequences of the assault. Using the Ivey reasoning on the facts at Bar, even where possession is admitted but did not result in a sale or delivery, there is no presumption that the defendants intended a sale. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 34, pp. 119-120. The questioned instruction here is actually a paraphrase of the instruction condemned in Ivey. It in effect tells the jury it may presume the defendants intended to deliver even if no delivery was made. At least the words permit the jurors to believe that the essential element of specific intent to deliver may be presumed if the act is known to produce a particular result. How could intent in this case be presumed when the result was not produced? The chief investigator for the Attorney General was the State's principal witness on intent to sell. His premise was that 31 baggies of marihuana raised an inference of intent to sell because the marihuana was more than one man could smoke before it deteriorated. [4] On cross-examination he was reminded that there were two defendants involved, but he still maintained that 15 1/2 baggies in possession was evidence of an intent to sell or deliver. Further, the patrolman who made the arrest was asked on cross-examination during the suppression hearing: Q. It's a fair statement, is it not, that you had no idea what these boys intended to do with that marihuana   ? You didn't have any idea at that time did you? A. No sir, I didn't. Again the patrolman was asked: Q. Now did either of these boys tell you they intended to deliver that marihuana? A. No, sir. Berry v. State, 51 Wyo. 249, 65 P.2d 1097, 1100 (1937) cited Bryant v. State, supra, and quoted from the Michigan case referred to in Bryant in part as follows:    `The jury may draw the inference, as they draw all other inferences, from any facts in evidence which to their minds fairly prove its [specific intent] existence,   ' In State v. Parmely, 65 Wyo. 215, 199 P.2d 112, 118 (1948) the defendant was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill and murder. The court condemned that part of an instruction on intent which read: `The law warrants the presumption, or inference, that a person intends the results or consequences to follow an act which he intentionally commits, which ordinarily do follow such acts.' The court (Riner, C.J.) quoted the paragraph in Ivey, supra, which is set out in full under the Ivey citation herein. This and other erroneous instructions given constrained the court to remand for a new trial. Rhodes v. State, 462 P.2d 722 (Wyo. 1969) followed Parmely in remanding the case for new trial for failure to give an instruction on specific intent. In State v. Woodward, 69 Wyo. 262, 240 P.2d 1157, 1164-1165 (1952) the defendant was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill and murder but was convicted of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault. Defendant asked and was refused the following instruction: `You Are Instructed that where an assault and battery is committed which does not result in the death of the person assailed, there is no presumption that the assailant intended to kill; and You Are Further Instructed that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the assault was made with the intention to accomplish only that which actually resulted.' In quoting the same paragraph from Ivey, set out above, Chief Justice Blume noted that the proffered instruction was evidently based upon what this court said in Ivey v. State ,  and that the statement was approved in State v. Parmely   . He further said:    [T]he requested instruction correctly stated an abstract principle of law, but, whether or not it was prejudicial error not to give the instruction is another matter. No exception was taken.    [A]n accused cannot complain of an error in an instruction as to a higher degree of the crime, where the accused is convicted of a lower degree. In Murdock v. State, 351 P.2d 674, 682 (Wyo. 1960) defendant was charged and convicted of larceny of sheep. Over the defendant's objection the following instruction was given: `The Court instructs the jury that the intent with which an act is done, is an act or emotion of the mind, seldom, if ever, capable of direct and positive proof, but it is to be arrived at by such just and reasonable deduction of inference from the acts and facts provided as the guarded judgment of a candid and cautious man would ordinarily draw therefrom. `The law warrants the presumption, or inference, that a person intends the results or consequences to follow an act which he intentionally commits, which ordinarily do follow such acts.' It is argued that this was not proper in the present case where intent was an essential element because the jurors were not informed of the particular act to which the instruction referred which in effect did away with the necessity of the proof of intent. No cases are cited to substantiate the charge of impropriety; and although the instruction does not appear to have been essential in the present case, was not in the words normally used, and is not very meaningful, we are unconvinced that any prejudice could have resulted therefrom. It is a general rule applicable in all criminal cases, including those in which a specific intent is an element of the crime, that the accused is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his unlawful voluntary acts. State v. Vinson, 269 Wis. 305, 68 N.W. 2d 712, 70 N.W.2d 1. (Emphasis added) The emphasized portion above is a quote from 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 35 which cites many cases, but most of them do not involve specific intent. In the context used in the present case 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 32 is applicable, where it is said at p. 117: A specific criminal intent is not presumed, and conviction cannot be had on the basis of an imputed intent. The general rule, stated infra § 34, that a criminal intention will be presumed from the commission of the unlawful act does not apply. No intent in law or mere legal presumption, differing from the intent in fact, can be allowed to supply the place of proof of the requisite specific intent. It is time to re-examine the purported general rule underscored in the foregoing quotation from the Murdock opinion with respect to its applicability in specific intent cases. Unfortunately, it is being cited and used indiscriminately with increasing frequency in Wyoming criminal cases. In the first place, it impliedly questions Bryant, Ivey, Ross, Berry, Parmely, and Woodward without mentioning them. In the second place, apart from Murdock, State v. Vinson, 269 Wis. 305, 68 N.W.2d 712, reh. den. 70 N.W.2d 1 (1955), cited as authority for the rule and relied on in Murdock, is cited only in other Wisconsin cases when Shepard's Citations are viewed, e.g. State v. Gould, 56 Wis.2d 808, 202 N.W.2d 903 (1973). In the third place, only Murdock and Vinson are cited for the following statement appearing in 21 Am.Jur.2d, § 82, p. 164: According to some authorities, the presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his unlawful voluntary acts applies to all criminal cases, including those where specific intent is an element of the crime. In Vinson the defendant was charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm. The court said in 68 N.W.2d at 714:    Such an assault constitutes a felony and the specific intent to do great bodily harm is an essential element of the crime charged. Where the intent is an essential element the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused had such an intent, or to show facts from which it may be presumed. That is the sole reference to presumption in the entire opinion. Apparently the court equated presumed with inferred. This is indicated in the next sentence in the opinion which quotes from Kuenzli v. State, 208 Wis. 340, 242 N.W. 147, 149 (1932), reh. den.: `   [I]ntent is a state of mind which can be evidenced only by the words or conduct of the person who is claimed to have entertained it. The jury was under no obligation to accept the direct evidence of intent furnished by the defendant, and must be permitted to infer intent from such of defendant's acts as objectively evidence his state of mind.   ' On rehearing in Vinson (70 N.W.2d 1, 4) the Wisconsin court, as the Murdock court, quoted as its only authority for the presumption of intent, a statement in 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 35, p. 121. It should be noted that the quotation underscored in Murdock omits two words at the very end which are included in the C.J.S. statement: knowingly performed. The Vinson instruction which caused the holding was quoted in the rehearing opinion as this (70 N.W.2d at 4): `When one person assaults another in such a manner that it is likely to inflict great bodily harm, then, when there are no circumstances to prevent or rebut the presumption, the legal and natural presumption is that great bodily harm was intended and such assault would be assault with intent to do great bodily harm.' In Vinson the facts in evidence were that defendant was six feet three inches tall, weighed 240 pounds and was 27 years old; complainant was short, weighed 121 pounds and was 49 years old; and that defendant stamped on the victim as he lay on the floor, which Vinson denied but he did not deny that he kicked him, four ribs were broken, and the victim was hospitalized for 22 days. The assault and the great bodily harm in Vinson were accomplished. The facts were such that the Wisconsin court in the last sentence of the original opinion said (68 N.W.2d at 714):    Contrary to appellant's contention, the evidence and the inferences from it which it was the province of the jury to draw establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault was made by Vinson with intent to inflict great bodily harm on Van Ouwerkerk. The bodily harm in Vinson, like the larceny in Murdock, were fait accompli; not so in the case at Bar. No delivery was made. No competent, direct, or circumstantial evidence or inference was shown here of an intention to deliver. Only by use of the presumption could the jury find that these defendants intended to part with part of their pot. Lacking accomplishment of the delivery and other evidence of intent, the Ivey line of cases becomes important. It is therefore necessary to examine the presumption to ascertain whether it belonged in the instruction. [5] One accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and this presumption applies to every element of the crime charged. Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 89, 69 S.Ct. 1447, 93 L.Ed. 1826 (1949); 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 581. Article 1, § 11 of the Wyoming Constitution, like the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal trial. In the case at Bar the trial judge properly instructed the jury in both of those rules stating: The court instructs the jury that each defendant at the outset of the trial is presumed to be innocent. He is not required to prove himself innocent or put in any evidence upon the subject. In considering the testimony in the case you must look at that testimony and view it in the light of that presumption which the law clothes the defendant with, that he is innocent, and it is a presumption which abides with him throughout the trial of the case, until the evidence convinces you to the contrary beyond all reasonable doubt. (Emphasis added) This court finds an irreconcilable conflict between that instruction and the presumption used in the one in issue. The charge here is possession with intent to deliver. It is indisputable that the intent to deliver is just as essential for the prosecution to prove with competent evidence as is the possession. Neel v. State, 452 P.2d 203, 204 (Wyo. 1969), reh. den. 454 P.2d 241. Unfortunately the intent instruction here permits the jury to accept without proof that defendants intended to deliver the marihuana because they performed    an act which it is known will produce a particular result, [and] it is from our common experience presumed to have anticipated that result and to have intended it. Boiled down, it instructs that since the possession of 31 baggies was proved the jury could presume that delivery was intended. Even arguendo that the presumption is permissible in some cases, is the predicate sound in this case? Is it known that possession will produce a delivery? Does common experience dictate that delivery is presumed to have been intended by the possession of 31 or 15 or 100 baggies of marihuana? The only evidence in the record on common experience was the narcotic agent's personal opinion, which was not gleaned from generally accepted knowledge.