Document: 460 U.S. 73 103 S.Ct. 969 74 L.Ed.2d 823 CONNECTICUT, Petitionerv.Lindsay B. JOHNSON. No. 81-927. Argued Oct. 13, 1982. Decided Feb. 23, 1983. Syllabus Upon a jury trial in Connecticut state court, respondent was convicted of all the charges under multicount information, including attempted murder and robbery. The court's general instructions to included an instruction that "a person's intention may be inferred from his conduct every person is conclusively presumed intend natural necessary consequences act." In specific on elements each crime, charge as again referred conclusive presumption intent, but robbery did not contain any further discussion intent. While respondent's appeal pending, this Court decided Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 510, 99 2450, 61 39, which held Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment violated by "the law presumes intends ordinary voluntary acts," because reasonable juror might have viewed it creating intent or shifting burden proof left open question whether, if so instructed, error can ever harmless. Thereafter, Supreme Court, while affirming convictions other counts reversed for Without discussing State's argument violation harmless, court concluded unconstitutional "conclusive presumption" language cured Held: judgment affirmed. 185 Conn. ----, 440 A.2d 858, Linda K. Lager, New Haven, Conn., petitioner. Jerrold H. Barnett, Public Defender, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN announced delivered opinion BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL joined. 1 39 (1979), acts." Id., at 512, S.Ct., 2453. We expressly case 526-527, 2460-2461. Since Sandstrom, courts taken different approaches harmless problem.1 therefore granted certiorari litigation resolve conflict. 455 937, 102 1426, 71 647 (1982). 2 * A. 3 Respondent Lindsay Johnson accused four-count information murder, kidnaping second degree, first sexual assault degree. His Superior with verdict guilty counts. 4 evidence revealed following sequence events: At approximately 11:00 p.m. December 20, 1975, three male companions were automobile Norwalk, A young woman who had lost her way stopped car asked them directions. offered ride show way. She agreed, two drove off. Respondent's followed car. 5 When reached location familiar her, she waited get out Instead, pulled over passenger side car, one entered started drive. told men needed Shortly thereafter abandoned, its occupants got into woman's four verbally abused threatened bodily harm, displayed knife, driver gun. group Norwalk pick up fifth man. During still another stop, placed fully loaded, semi-automatic rifle trunk. take leave alone, they replied would given money near home end evening. 6 then eastward Turnpike Haven. Respondent, black, remarked he "never white before." Tr. 50, 262. arrived Haven early morning gas. directed large apartment complex, where lavatory floor building. There, five sexually assaulted her. 7 returned bound hands telephone cord. dime booth could call made their getaway. After directing bridge, forced run him middle bridge. They struggled threw railing. landed pipe jumped river when saw pursuing eluded hiding bridge; able untie hands. remained hidden heard voices shouting, eventually sought refuge cold.2 after 4:00 a.m., residents nearby house admitted moaning, "please let me . trying kill me." 390. 8 Relying provided woman, police arrested few hours later. Two days thereafter, victim identified array 15 photographs. also court,3 describing most vicious violent assailants. 9 defense theory, indicated cross-examination witnesses,4 apparently consented travel sex them, plan keep For example, attorney whether mention been going motel having sex, acts, said full tank stated behind wheel became stuck snowbank turnpike, counsel how many push or, indeed, done so. Cross-examination went hospital 21, examining physician relations boyfriend previous morning. According doctor, accounted sperm observed gynecological tests. Finally, descriptions bridge arguably contrary victim's description area "secluded." B 10 began applicable principles law. accept pronouncements sole judge facts. explained innocence proving existence element crimes charged beyond doubt. described 11 fact solely within your province jurors. However, you should aware rule will helpful App. 22-23. 12 gave crime. With respect spoke presumption.5 hand, "very largely matter inference."6 degree reminder jury's duty base presented court. C 13 filed timely 1976, problems reporter obtaining complete transcript briefed argued until February 1981. interim, (1979). "conclusively presumed" rendered Sandstrom.7 State error, any, 14 affirmed assault, basis regarding intent.8 858 (1981). accordance analyzed whole determine interpreted it; balanced portions against challenged essentially ailing itself infected entire resulting conviction violates due process." Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 147, 94 396, 400, 38 368 (1973). found infirm, inferential portion "sufficient prevent interpreting [conclusive] expressed them." A.2d, 863. turned "to repeated, incorporated, possibly used." Ibid. repeated erroneous language, count. instruction, however, couched permissive inference. Finding "significant curative effect," id., 864, conviction. count, refused assume applied inferences contained kidnaping, rather than earlier offenses. It thus upheld assault; ruled influenced instruction. 865. 16 discuss seemingly relying recent decision Truppi, 182 449, 438 712 (1980), cert. denied, 451 941, 101 2024, 68 329 (1981).9 petition certiorari, claimed harmlessness Chapman California, supra.10 II 17 Chapman, noted "there are some constitutional rights basic fair infraction never treated error." 386 U.S., n. 8, 87 828, (citing Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799 (1963) (right counsel); Payne Arkansas, 356 560, 78 844, 975 (1958) (coerced confession); Tumey Ohio, 273 47 437, L.Ed. 749 (1927) (impartial judge)). Resolving reserved years Fahy Connecticut, 375 85, 86, 84 229, 230, 171 (1963), errors considered beneficiary "prove[s] doubt complained contribute obtained." 24, 828. See Milton 407 371, 92 2174, 33 (1972); Harrington 395 250, 89 1726, 23 284 (1969). 18 continued trend away practice appellate country England "revers[ing] judgments trivial errors." R. Traynor, Riddle Harmless Error (1970). Even enactment statutes designed eliminate reversals based technical errors,11 assumed well century "automatic reversal required involving right guaranteed Federal Constitution." Note, Error: Need Uniform Standard, 53 St. John's L.Rev. 541, 544 Before assumption altered certain cases remain instructive here. 19 Bollenbach United States, 326 607, 66 402, 90 350 (1946), just minutes receiving supplemental containing improper presumption. This conviction, noting "say lay know enough disregard judge's bad misguides transfer function giving measuring appropriate legal yardsticks." 613-614, 405-406. rejected Government's contention view abundant issue question, stating: 20 "This vital seven unable find guilt light main charge, conspiracy count inquiry answered untenable proposition. indeed long jump guessing confident rely 'presumption' guide. [T]he spelt record, has according procedure standards criminal trials federal courts." 614, 406. 21 year Carpenters & Joiners 330 395, 67 775, 91 973 (1947). defendants, unions violate Sherman Act, unsuccessfully requested union agents' unlawful acts only actually participated in, authorized, ratified acts. correctly law, even though there showing unions' participation conspiracy: 22 "[A] direct no evidence. There knowing here facts condemned actual authorization ratification such failure since resulted incorrect instruction." 408-409, 782 (footnotes omitted). agree that, these cannot read broad proposition instructional dimensions say, form harmlessness. reasonably require 24 consistently prohibited entering come forward regardless overwhelmingly point direction." States Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 572-573, 97 1349, 1355-1356, 51 642 (1977); see 408, 782; Sparf Hansen 156 51, 105, 273, 294, 343 (1895). And makes clear, we think, functional equivalent issue. 25 instructed burden-shifting Rather evaluating overcome proved defendant intended kill, jurors believed upon finding preliminary facts, "they intent." 523, 2459.12 26 holding jurors, like Sandstrom's, Such interpretation led ignore once consequence cause death. failed consider tending cast crime own testimony phone 27 Because eases task, reason believe deliberately undertaken more difficult task" 526, 2460, 13; Presumptive Intent Jury Instructions 1980 Wis.L.Rev. 366, 388.13 Given uncontroverted events occurred likely borrow steal victim. removed 28 An disputed renders irrelevant relied evidence.14 If reviewing hold verdict. overwhelming simply irrelevant.15 To allow perform performed function, give too much weight society's interest punishing little method decisions made. 614-615, 406, stated: "All concern without heeding mode accomplished." County Ulster Allen, 140, 160, 2213, 2226, 60 777 (1979) ("[It is] analyzing mandatory ample record support conviction"). 29 rare situations play role connection offense acquitted bearing convicted, See, e.g., Hearn James, 677 F.2d 841, 843 (CA11 1982); Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604, 613 (N.D.1980), 450 1002, 1711, 204 addition, conceded Krzeminski Perini, 614 121, 125 (CA6), 449 866, 199, (1980). Washington Harris, 650 447, 453-454 (CA2 1981), 951, 1455, 666 presenting alibi, insanity, self-defense, admit act alleged prosecution intentional, thereby sufficiently reducing likelihood permit supra, 73. lower raising particular actions, himself jury.16 30 exception, precise boundaries, does apply concede either As above, "so ill-suited both theory tried presented," Winter, 663 1120, 1145 (CA1 81-1392, deemed permitted convict concerning charged. deprived "constitutional 827-828. 31 32 ordered. STEVENS, concurring judgment. 34 occurs trial, places limits disposition case. grievous, must reverse.1 less reverse unless declares harmless.2 But make determination; merely permits do cases.3 18, 824, 705 (1967). 35 case, prosecutor declare That action raise question.4 I dismiss writ certiorari. vote authorize entry judgment, join stand. 36 Chief BURGER, dissenting. 37 POWELL's dissenting opinion, write separately emphasize today adopt automatic error. Only Justices requiring not, cases. Court's holding, dissent, 21-22, 826-827, (1967), errors. POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR join, Today plurality finds except "rare situations." effect plurality's binding create whenever Sandstrom-type given, conclusiveness my view, serious 40 address jurisdictional raised STEVENS' before considering merits. STEVENS reach merits declined Accordingly concludes presented. unclear takes provide greater protection supreme refusal rests independent adequate ground. views erroneous. 41 establish standard protect people infractions federally rights." 826. State, course, stringent require. PruneYard Shopping Center Robins, 447 74, 81, 100 2035, 2040, 64 741 "But impose restrictions specifically refrains imposing Oregon Hass, 420 714, 719, 95 1215, 1219, 43 570 (1975) (emphasis original). Accordingly, wishes rule, 42 examination establishes course. enacted statute procedure. Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-265; L'Heureux 166 312, 323-324, 348 578, 584 (1974). strikingly "materially injurious" party claims erred. applies instead rule. Coleman, 167 260, 355 (1974): "The usual appellant bears establishing 'materially injurious' him. General Statutes L'Heureux, 323, 578. When, occurred, shifts state, 'must belief doubt.' [87 705] [1967], supra." 278-279, (footnote 44 adhered distinction. Cooper, 207, 212-213, 418, 421 (1980); Ruth, 181 187, 196-197, 435 3, 7-8 Aillon 168 547-548, 363 49, (1975). 45 note, state's Its silence Truppi examined depart longstanding test 46 prefaced reference demanding 465, 721. articulated classes recognized those can. (quoting 827). subsequent discussion, contrasted "d[o] significantly impair truth trial" 466, determined nature poses risk fail deprives afforded context "we decline weigh guilt." reasoned constitute invasion 405, (1946)). Thus, appears adopted rule—the today's seems favor: falls class harmless.1 otherwise, undertook unannounced departure applying standard, Chapman. attribute illogic perception ante, 9. presented—whether 48 "[t]he 513, held, essential noted, caused death acted voluntarily, "could [the] 2459. Alternatively, persuasion lead similar slaying, additional themselves shifted prove lacked requisite mental state."2 524, 49 goes further. interprets "functional equivalent" 84. qualifies categorical statement jury"—i.e., concede[s] Ante, 87. hardly exception. Indeed, conceded—as self-defense pled—there occasion type III 50 "all circumstances, always harmful." 827. little, affecting proper say "beyond Chapman's test, assess 254, 1728, assessing judged. substantially harmless-error doctrine. difficulty determining difficulty, reasons, derives error's nature, particularly perceived resemblance 83-88. analogy draws, between inapt. removes completely consideration. presumption, contrast, leaves ultimately jury. limited also, innocent crime—including infra, 101. instructions, provides means satisfied.3 518, 7, 2456, 7. circumstances wholly superfluous. 52 seeks justify "without charged." 88. accurately describes verdict, misperceives functions. informs A, fact, presume B, fact.4 Contrary assumption, operate independently look initially 23A. what did—i.e., character quality acts—before define If, dispositive becomes unnecessary task remove consideration, preclude "harmless doubt."5 Lamb Jernigan, 683 1332, 1342 1982), 82-5768; Jacks Duckworth, 651 480, 487 (CA7 1981). intent.6 doing, disregards reasoning underlying rejection agreeing fundamental mandatory, Black, writing said: 54 "We urged petitioners errors, harmful. out, unnecessary. rule." 827 added). 55 involve infinite variety "facts circumstances." rational justice system absolute rules deprive perhaps single important judging: exercise judicial discretion. Yet precisely does. defendant's actions unequivocally conceded. execution-style slaying tied shot repeatedly head, clear presence affected intent.7 equals concession limitation doctrine fails recognize impact vary IV 56 Neither nor participants testified trial. evidence—from victim, sheltered escaped, police, expert witnesses—was uncontradicted.8 Reviewing testimony, facts": 57 "On 10:30 p.m., 58 female dropped off railroad station return West Redding. Unfamiliar cold snowy weather, defendant, automobile, route man away. car.9 threatened, various times, shown knife Sometime later, abandoned picked up. Eventually, driven toward vehicle building area. men. wire. Haven-West line across about midway point, Initially outside railing, water pursued managed elude later residence called. others a.m. same car." 860 (1981) 59 On robbery, uncontradicted stated, need ." confirmed unequivocal statements: overpowered took it. One think rob clearer. marginally compelling. Having gang-type rape wire icy December. jury, consistent regarded stressed words, sustain resting constituting doubt." 17A. stating jury.10 22A-23A. Although neither imposes established 6, supra. rejected. reasons properly decide Normally, appropriately below. extensively apparent us. remand consideration Several gone overwhelming. 1342-1343 454 1147, 1010, 300 (1982); People Wright, 408 Mich. 1, 30-32, 289 10-12 McKenzie, --- Mont. 608 P.2d 428, 458-459, 1050, 626, 507 Other narrower depends 1144-1145 81-1392; McGuinn Crist, 657 1107, 1108-1109 (CA9 990, 1614, 850 1981) (dictum), Thomas, N.Y.2d 467, 477, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 590, N.E.2d 430, 436 (1980) (concurring opinion). Still suggested Hammontree Phelps, 605 1371, 1380 (CA5 1979); 712, 721 Dietz Solem, 640 126, 131 (CA8 period midnight 4:30 National Weather Service Bridgeport reported air-temperature range 23-28xF, wind-chill factor -10xF, temperature 46xF. Approximately inches snow accumulated snowfall 20. alone. named co-participants, pleaded testify called witness, detective accuracy stenographic transcription taped interview reflect attorneys summation. Pursuant 51-61 (Supp.1982), arguments recorded. was: "Now, [no] man's mind is. infer accused's surrounding circumstances. previously 25. "presume [respondent] prevailing conditions; air force used person." Specifically, "I already necessarily very time was. "As before, draw inference privilege provided, inference." 28. argued, unsuccessfully, denied self-representation instruct charge. These issues now us, denied. 1101, 677, 70 643 objected accepted resolution "exceptional circumstances" expounded Evans, 165 61, 69-70, 327 576, 581 Engle Isaac, 456 107, 135, 44, 1558, 1575, 783 147-154, 2219-2223, citing 827, infringements conclusion question. courts, free interpret constitutions laws fewer applications Constitution. (1975); Cooper 58, 62, 788, 791, 730 approach. seek review Sandstrom. issue, accordingly, provides: hearing shall regard defects affect substantial parties." U.S.C. 2111. Montana 603 244 (Mont.1979). pivotal concept possibility impermissible manner requires result constitutionally acceptable fashion." Schmolesky, Allen Montana: Lends Ear Turns Face, Rutgers 261, 272 original); 295, 193. Traynor notes monograph error: "In absence definitive studies contrary, juries part understand faithfully follow instructions. encompasses tribunal understood material case." 73-74. calling Apparently, dissent believes evaluates decides presumption; assumes turns lack dissent's confidence predicting deliberations, impossible conclude conscientious evaluate applicability instructed. note text, deliberations committed suggests quality" "are Post, 97. post, ("The presumption") "unnecessary" here, sense sufficient doubt, accompanied justified, defending reliance proof. 828 committed, confused nonconstitutional occurs, Kotteakos 328 750, 1239, 1557 see, e.g. 52-265. Constitution determination Cross-petition 7; oral 9-10. colloquy place argument: "Petitioner: sometimes entertains instruction—the challenge not. position "Question: Well, case? No, Your Honor, asks least use test. Let sure correctly. entertain harmless—must to. yes." clearly merit No arises guarantees defendants wrote: "Therefore uncured damage harmful instructions." cited them. 12, 721, 10-11 Hamilton, 1121, 1131-1133 (Mont.1980), 924, 3017, 65 1117 reasons. suggest compelled reversal. Whether remembered inevitably 88 (STEVENS, J., concurring). foreclosing remanded initially. our inquiry. process, Court. remand, 244, 245 distinguishable Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 320, 14, 2781, 2790, 560 ("failure necessity error"); 782-783, (1947) (failure level harmless); Weiler 323 606, 610-611, 548, 550-551, 495 (1945) (erroneous perjury proven uncorroborated oath witness harmless). deliberated hours. response minutes. course graphically term often describe wide procedural effects, typically refers evidentiary device allows another." Jeffries Stephan, Defenses, Presumptions, Burden Proof Criminal Law, Yale L.J. 1325, 1335 functioned fashion. allowed possessed negligence. 523-524, 2458-2459. intimates, "in 15. Despite remains possible begs "[o]bviously, supporting drawn persuasive prompting procured [unconstitutional presumption] inconsequential. cases, validity whatever embody harmless." L.J., 1388, 192. facial ambivalence respect, expresses ---- 827-828). although automatically reversal." question—the critical case—is category falls. invariably "automatically" compels finds, subject situation "concedes" traditional discretion society justly. comparable harmless—for inform and, discussed above reaches predicate hypothetical unusual Numerous coming illustrate frequency arise murder. below factual application White Florida, 415 So.2d 720 (Fla.) (members motorcycle gang stabbed times slit throat twice), 474, Arango 411 172 (defendant beat blunt instrument, wrapped around neck, stuffed towel mouth, twice head), 2973, 1360 Missouri Mercer, 618 S.W.2d (Mo.) strangled companion, monitoring pulse, ceased), 933, 432, 240 "concession" said, us." Record 37. He kept police. remainder 863-865. correctness

Category: 0