Opinion ID: 2052508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unconstitutional Shifting of Burden of Proof.

Text: I would reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court's instructions improperly required Rough Surface to prove his insanity by clear and convincing evidence under SDCL 22-5-10. This is plain error as the statute is unconstitutional. SDCL 23A-44-15 provides Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of a court. State v. Breed, 399 N.W.2d 311 (S.D.1987); State v. Brammer, 304 N.W.2d 111 (S.D.1981). The fatal constitutional defect of SDCL 22-5-10 is that it places upon the defendant the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. The State cannot constitutionally require a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, i.e., the defendant's burden of persuasion cannot exceed raising a reasonable doubt. It is an unconstitutional invasion of the presumption of innocence to exceed this point. S.D. Const., art. VI, § 2. The State must prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Most serious crimes contain an element which overlaps sanity. Therefore, if the defendant raises a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, it becomes constitutionally inconsistent and impossible for the State to prove the overlapping element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the statute poses a very great danger for jury confusion and for conviction by less than beyond a reasonable doubt and is unconstitutional. S.D. Const., art. VI, § 2.