Document: 443 U.S. 307 99 S.Ct. 2781 61 L.Ed.2d 560 James A. JACKSON, Petitioner,v.Commonwealth of VIRGINIA et al. No. 78-5283. Argued March 21, 1979. Decided June 28, Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, See 444 890, 100 195. Syllabus Petitioner was convicted first-degree murder after a bench trial in Virginia court, and his motion petition the state courts to set aside conviction on ground that there insufficient evidence premeditation, necessary element murder, were denied. He then brought habeas corpus proceeding Federal District Court, which, applying "no evidence" criterion Thompson v. Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 4 654, found record devoid premeditation granted writ. Applying same criterion, Court Appeals reversed, holding some petitioner had intended kill victim. Held: 1. A federal court must consider not whether any support state-court conviction, but sufficient justify rational trier fact find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368. Pp. 313-324. (a) Winship presupposes as an essential due process guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment no person shall be made suffer onus criminal except upon proof—defined convince doubt existence every offense. 316-320. (b) After critical inquiry review sufficiency simply determine jury properly instructed doubt, could reasonably finding The relevant question is viewing light most favorable prosecution, have elements crime rule inadequate protect against misapplications constitutional standard (c) challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which requires entertain prisoner's claim he being held "custody violation Constitution or laws treaties United States," applicant entitled relief if it adduced at proof 320-324. 2. this case prosecution shows factfinder guilty law. 324-326. 4th Cir., 580 F.2d 1048, affirmed. Carolyn J. Colville, Richmond, Va., for petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Marshall Coleman, respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 prohibits what applied when has been evidence. 2 * Circuit chesterfield County, woman named Mary Houston Cole.1 Under law, defined "the unlawful killing another with malice aforethought." Stapleton Commonwealth, 123 Va. 825, 96 S.E. 801. Premeditation, specific intent kill, distinguishes first from second degree; former offense, burden proving clearly rests prosecution. Shiflett 143 609, 130 777; Jefferson 214 432, 201 S.E.2d 749. 3 That shot killed Mrs. Cole dispute trial. State's established she member staff local county jail, befriended him while imprisoned disorderly conduct charge, released arranged live home her son daughter-in-law. Testimony relatives indicated day drinking spent great deal time shooting targets revolver. Late afternoon, according their testimony, unsuccessfully attempted talk victim into driving North Carolina. She did drive diner. There two observed several police officers, who testified both drinking. deputy sheriff they preparing diner car. possession revolver, also kitchen knife automobile. offered keep revolver until sobered up, latter would unnecessary since about engage sexual activity. Her body secluded church parking lot half later, naked waist down, slacks beneath body. Uncontradicted medical expert twice close range petitioner's gun. appeared sexually molested. Six cartridge cases identified having fired gun near 5 Cole, drove car Carolina, where, short trip Florida, arrested days later. postarrest statement, introduced admitted contended, however, accidental. When asked describe condition shooting, drunk, "pretty high." His story attacked resisted advances. said defended himself firing number warning shots ground, reloaded victim, said, take him, "went off" ensuing struggle. fled without seeking help because afraid. At trial, position acted self-defense. Alternatively, claimed event own showed too intoxicated form law sustain degree.2 6 judge, declaring convinced committed offense.3 judgment contrary denied, sentenced serve term 30 years penitentiary. writ error Supreme denied.4 7 commenced States Eastern Virginia, raising basic claim.5 Fourth reversed judgment.6 noted dissent denial certiorari exposed 368, might compel new validity tested proceeding. Freeman Zahradnick, 429 1111, 97 1150, 51 566 (dissent certiorari). But appellate absence further guidance apply Louisville adopted. view facts shots, do so, once twice. concluded judge so incapable premeditation. 8 We supra, 439 1001, 58 676. II 9 Our narrow. seriously questioned aspect governing allocation production persuasion Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 95 1881, 44 508; Patterson New York, 432 197, 2319, 53 281. As demonstrates, sitting aware State bore establishing stated reasonable-doubt appraisal moreover, does contest conclusion sustainable. And second-degree murder. sole claim, based squarely recognizing decided premeditated. thus raised goes nature right recognized opinion. III 10 This our expressly constitutionally protects accused fairly Upon examination fundamental differences between underpinnings answer question, we think, clear. 11 It axiomatic charge tried constitutes process. Arkansas, 333 196, 201, 68 514, 517, 92 L.Ed. 644; Presnell Georgia, 14, 235, 207. These standards more than reflect broader premise never doubted system: cannot incur loss liberty offense notice meaningful opportunity defend. E. g., Hovey Elliott, 167 409, 416-420, 17 841, 844-846, 42 215. Cf. Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 377-379, 91 780, 785-787, 113. defend, itself, presumes well total want will conclude favor accused. Accordingly, wholly crucial charged infirm. Vachon Hampshire, 414 478, 94 664, 38 666; Adderley 385 39, 87 242, 149; Gregory Chicago, 394 111, 89 946, 22 134; Douglas Buder, 412 430, 93 2199, 37 52. doctrine secures elemental rights: freedom arbitrary deprivation liberty. 12 explicitly issue concern evidentiary "sufficiency." U.S., S.Ct., 625. stands different footing. involved adjudication juvenile delinquency statute providing prove delinquent—which engaged adult—by preponderance standard, satisfied "guilty," result short, totally guilt. 13 problem addressed distinct stark arbitrariness presented Louisville. Due Process Clause defendant "except constitute charged." 364, 1073. holding, emphasized traditionally regarded decisive difference culpability civil liability. Id., 358-362, 1068-1072. Davis States, 160 469, 16 353, 40 499; Brinegar 338 160, 174, 69 1302, 1310, 1879; Leland Oregon, 343 790, 72 1002, 1302; Wigmore, Evidence 2495, pp. 307-308 (3d ed. 1940). Woodby INS, 276, 285, 483, 487, 362. "plays vital role American scheme procedure," operates give "concrete substance" presumption innocence ensure unjust convictions, reduce risk factual 363, 1072. impressing need reach subjective certitude accused, symbolizes significance society attaches sanction itself. 372, 1076 (Harlan, J., concurring). 14 phrased one "proof . ." subsequent discussing departed definition understanding central purposes serves. See, e. Ivan V. City 407 203, 204, 1951, 1952, 32 659; Lego Twomey, 404 477, 486-487, 619, 625-626, 618; 281; Cool 409 100, 104, 354, 357, 34 335. B 15 Although intimated factfinder's application may present challenged, 625; Johnson Louisiana, 406 356, 360, 1620, 1623, 152, Courts generally assumed long instruction given no-evidence remains appropriate guide assessing founded Cunha Brewer, 511 894 (CA8).7 agree. ritual. substantive require rationally evidence.8 "reasonable doubt," minimum, "reason."9 Yet occasionally convict even can jury. such occurrence deemed reversal conviction. Glasser 315 60, 80, 62 457, 86 680; Bronston 352, 595, 568. also, Curley 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 392-393, 229, 232-233.10 process, follows occurs stand. duty assess historic called obtained court. For example, direct where involuntary confession used defendant, reviews wrongly Blackburn Alabama, 361 205-210, 274, 279-282, 242. Drope Missouri, 420 162, 174-175, n. 10, 896, 905-906, 43 103. obtains proceedings. Townsend Sain, 372 293, 318, 83 745, 759, 770; Brown Allen, 344 443, 506-507, 73 397, 445-446, 469 (opinion Frankfurter, J.). 18 instructed, doubt.11 "ask itself believes doubt." 282, 486 (emphasis added). Instead, whether, 362, 1624-1625. familiar gives full play responsibility resolve conflicts weigh evidence, draw inferences ultimate facts. Once charged, weigher preserved through legal judicial all considered prosecution.12 impinges "jury" discretion only extent guarantee protection law.13 19 readily apparent. "[A] mere modicum satisfy 'no evidence' Jacobellis Ohio, 378 184, 202, 84 1676, 1686, 793 (Warren, C.J., dissenting). Any relevant—that tendency make slightly probable cf. Fed.Rule Evid. 401—could "mere modicum." argued "modicum" fails supply workable predictable determining command ofWinship honored.14 C 20 prisoner States." decision, clear alleges characterized led claim. Thus, assuming remedies exhausted, see 2254(b), independent adequate bar, Estelle Williams, 425 501, 1691, 48 126; Francis Henderson, 536, 1708, Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 2497, 594; Fay Noia, 391, 438, 822, 848, 837, cognizable respondents argued, nonetheless, should entertained district 2254. 21 addition argument invites replication trials guise 2254 proceedings—an recognize regularly gauge intruding legitimate domain fact—the urged departure test proceedings expand meritless claims courts, duplicate work disserve societal interest finality proceedings, increase friction judiciaries. sum, counsel urges type fall within limit jurisdiction Stone Powell, 428 465, 3037, 49 1067, respect claims. disagree. First, likely follow acceptance has, exaggerated. Federal-court challenges convictions dealt Stone, 113 (CA9); Grieco Meachum, 533 713 (CA1); Williams Peyton, 776 (CA4). stringent contours create entirely class corpus. Furthermore, meritorious undoubtedly and, fully sufficiency, task difficult. 463, 410.15 almost always judged written hearing 23 Second, problems federal-state comity arise whenever invokes redress alleged violation. states vast majority vindicate other rights implicated occasional abuse ready correct. 498-501, 441-443 24 nonetheless "full fair hearing" system—meaning instance evidence—further inquiry—apart possibility discretionary Court—should foreclosed. far much. rejecting course deference affirming Congress selected precisely forums are responsible secured accord norm postconviction possible error. (d). What presume these sense. appraise occur—reflecting belief "finality" invocation achieved expense right—is lightly abjured. kind subject Court's decision supra. innocence. necessity confined those defendants morally blameless. 697-698, 1888-1889 (requirement "limit[ed] proved, exonerate" accused). system justice thief complain unconstitutionally burglar. 26 hold 2254—if settled procedural prerequisites otherwise satisfied—the doubt.16 IV 27 Turning finally case, reject dictated convinces us fatally Cole. went specifically her. recognized, gauged applicable defining exist particular length time, formed moment commission act. Commonwealth Brown, 671, 447. From circumstantial record, possess before killing. 29 prosecution's uncontradicted fatal occurred close, predictably fatal, experienced use weapon. Immediately mishap quite odds extreme intoxication. Shortly episode, publicly expressed intention relations partially unclothed. circumstances, inferred notwithstanding killing, capacity calculated behavior demonstrated capable committing premeditated self-defense required series improbable facts, prime among them inference uninterested activity interested willingly removed part clothing advances, though armed loaded just knew how use. evident story, including belated contention incredible. 31 Only theory affirmative out hypothesis sustained. rejected past. Holland 348 121, 140, 75 127, 137, 150. decline adopt today. preserve faced historical supports conflicting presume—even affirmatively appear record—that resolved defer resolution. criteria, degree reasons, 33 ordered. POWELL took consideration case. 35 STEVENS, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, concurring judgment. 36 ante, 309. prevailed "at least early Nation." 361, 1071, Today creates law—one jurisprudence. According now including, apparently, already jury, levels judges—except "rational Ante, 319. adoption novel Moreover, I believe unwise act lawmaking. Despite its chimerical appeal counterpart venerable principle am persuaded precipitous adversely affect quality administered judges. reason analyze brainchild care. 39 begin explaining why neither nor general experience supporting supports, much less compels, precept. next show logically compelled either analysis Finally, try demonstrate rule—if meaningless shibboleth threatens serious harm system. is, course, tradition rules emerge case-by-case issues. Widespread existing often provides occasion, sometimes relied justification, exercise lawmaking authority Without entering debate over legitimacy justification action, certain basis dramatic—indeed, —constitutional efforts unless (1) hand (2) powerful reasons change Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 345-348, 56 466, 482-483, 688 (Brandeis, 41 counts. accordingly formulated dangerous circumstances—i. e., necessitated limited precise [the originally] applied," Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. Co. Emigration Comm'rs, 33, 355, 899, identifiable experiences evil supposedly involved. Most significantly, announced edict absolutely bearing outcome. stake If viewed "in prosecution," 319—and, indeed, eyes actual factfinder, whose observations recorded transcript—there matter applied. Part opinion, accepts conclusion. therefore, fashion broad dispose squalid rather routine view, sufficient. adopted forestall hypothetical demonstrated, my demonstrable. Judiciary received share criticism—principally delays costs associated litigation—I dissatisfaction accuracy factfinding adequacy reviewing insufficiency. little marshals unconvincing. 317-318 10. incorrect implying significant occasions overturned opinions cited 317, stand proposition. 45 study 127 reviewed various reported recent hardbound volume Reporter, Second Series, Volume 589, reveals grounds. those, two, counts actually arguably issues masquerading questions.1 difficult turn up when, instead acting level review, studied, second, third, fourth review. tinker elaborate mechanism functioning well. 46 nothing or, like warrant today's excursion rulemaking. portrays logical corollary regarding mind persons evaluating credibility appellate, corpus, standards; reasoning support, indeed counsels against, judges; connection invented 47 contrast circumstances "a choice difference: [trial] below forthrightly acknowledged believed [in], doubt" of, juvenile's 369, 1075 Because verdict adult receive. merely extended juveniles available Nation. 1071. suggests procedures. repeatedly function describing requisite "subjective certitude" "factfinder,"2 mentioned judges know really "rational" group persons. mode employed finds pointed breadth current standard.3 contrast, candidly recognizes "generally"rejected adopts 316.4 50 nine prior directly presented. 1971. Here, purportedly relies decisions, out, 2794, overturn purported interpreting Constitution, whatsoever collateral case.5 notes, endorsed test, continued decided. 52; 654. Clyatt 197 207, 222, 429, 726. primary inapplicable here. desirable effect significantly reducing inaccurate erroneous instilling confidence 363-364, 1072-1073. id., 370-372, 1075-1077 impossible (and try) appreciable ruling directed post-trial acquittal motions appeal, rule, erroneous.6 Indeed, very juries rationally, tell truth declare conscientiously obey understand instructions receive retiring verdict, therefore provide bulwark determinations. To Winship.7 52 Having failed identify directed, typically character, places reliance dry, syllogism: logic standard. But, taken conclusion, "logic" 486, rejects others consistent Winship. decide entire triers explanation, chooses still narrower asks "after 319.8 seems me allows allow rejected—that honestly free contains tending each 54 Time today wisest compromise maximizes innocent erroneously greatest faith ability procedures produce verdicts. obscure precedent, reflects policy pre-existing 55 cautions exaggerating rule. 321. true practice contain containing think correct acknowledges "most courts." Ibid. means seldom, ever, tangible benefits. mean impact administration justice. On contrary, harmful indicates substantially applying. 322. performed adequately courts. inconsistent prohibition—added order undue interference 2503, 594—against overturning determination merits issue, competent jurisdiction." 2254(d). La Vallee Delle Rose, 410 690, 1203, 637. assign single reviewing, inevitably supervising, highest undermine morale esteem judiciary particularly purpose additional layer "rational."9 Such consequences intangible significant. 57 potential serious. Their burdens heavy delegating assistants expected perform.10 invite unknown prisoners old fact" certainly base decisions transcript read factfinders' rationality challenged rule.11 confront appeals surely impose countless hours unproductive labor assistants.12 increasing character distinguished lawyers discontinue service bench.13 pointless impair thereby community applications law." unable join gratuitous directive colleagues bench. degrees specified Va.Code 18.2-32 (1975) follows: "Murder, capital poison, lying wait, imprisonment, starving, willful, deliberate, attempt commit, arson, rape, robbery, burglary abduction degree, punishable Class felony. "All felony." felonies carry life. 18.2-10(b) (1975). sentence years, 18.2-10(c). Murder takes common voluntary intoxication—although defense murder—is material negated it. Hatcher 218 811, 241 756. plea "have powers, privileges duties 19.2-257 Virginia. Saunders Reynolds, 697, 204 421. Each 19.2-317 merits, affirm merits. erred behalf unwarranted drawn evidence." contended affirmance violate Amendment. denying Jackson's petition, "of [the] reversible complained appeal; Pettus 207 906, 153 278. correctly exhausted issue. 4, reported. Appeals' 1048. changed Sixth recently Spruytte Koehler, order, 590 An provoked lively three members concededly contained "some applicant's Speigner Jago, 603 1208. significance. makes "properly instructed." described "based arises lack 1624, 152 (citing cases). discussion variations instructions, 150 (rejecting exclude guilt). This, frequently ground. entertaining Crim.Proc. 29, serves highlight traditional beyond-a-reasonable-doubt irretrievably discretion. sure, permitted enter unassailable unreasonable "not guilty." acquittal, overwhelming. power err side mercy, thought include guilty. Carpenters Joiners 330 395, 408, 67 775, 782, 973. Capital Traction Hof, 174 13-14, 580, 585-586, 873. belied testing postverdict motion. L. Orfield, Criminal Procedure Rules §§ 29:1-29:29 (1967 Supp.1978). Until 1972, advanced descriptive quantum distinguish acquittal. Feinberg, 140 592, 594. Taylor, 464 (CA2), Feinberg overruled, partly strength Taylor directed-verdict articulated 232-233 (If "reasonable" jurors "must necessarily guilt, permissible fixed bounds consideration"). prevailing judging trials. C. Wright, Practice 467 (1969 Contrary suggestion judgment, minimum enforce novel. Amato, 495 545, 549 (CA5) ("whether, taking [of evidence] Government, reasonably-minded accept defendant's doubt") added); Jorgenson, 451 516, 521 (CA10) (whether, "considering government, substantial 680, universally understood criterion. Harding 337 254, 256 (CA8). generally, supra n.10, 29.28. unrelated reached. Just permit innocence, scrutiny factfinder—if known. F. Wharton, 520 (12th 1975 Application lead absurdly results. failure instruct harmless Kentucky, 436 98 1930, 468. proved overwhelming denied slender bit results faithless rationale insufficient. oral argument, keyed Counsel disagreed. speculate invoked proper although weight, bar suggested intrusions define offenses. Quite explicit reference Whether question. Papachristou Jacksonville, 405 156, 839, 110; Robinson California, 370 660, 82 1417, 758. Tarr, 589 (CA1 1978), appellant aid abet unauthorized transfer machinegun 5861(e) knowledge. F.2d, 60. Whetzel, 191 707 (1978), appellant's Government offer infer merchandise [appellant] transported value $5,000." U.S.App.D.C., 188, 711. However, Government's valuation method, allowed consider, legally erroneous. Similarly, Fearn, 1316 (CA7 nonconstitutional "that rest firmer uncorroborated admission accused." 1321. independently 1072, stated: "As Speiser Randall, [357 513,] 525-526, 78 [1332], 1342 [2 1460]: 'There litigation margin error, representing factfinding, parties account. Where party transcending value—as liberty—this reduced placing persuading commands man lose borne convincing guilt.' end, indispensable, 'impresses reaching issue.' Dorsen Rezneck, Re Gault Future Juvenile Law, Family Law Quarterly, (1967)." (Emphasis added.) Later page, 1073, added: "It important individual going ordinary affairs government adjudge utmost certainty." 370, concurring) ("[A] represents concerning thinks correctness conclusions adjudication"). relying treatises analyzed system, determined Nation" "is accepted jurisdictions measure guilt." 1071 1077 ("It nearly complete long-standing expression fairness, litigation") undertaken systematic prevail sources discovered suggest "varied standards" "subject shifting elastic definitions." Winningham, Dilemma Directed Acquittal, Vand.L.Rev. 699, 705-706 (1962). ALI Code Procedure, Commentary 321, 961-962 (1930); 481(c), 522(a) commentary, U.L.A. (1974). hardly bears repeating substitute device determinations 1067. designed guard malfunctions systems. discussed earlier, 329, incidence appears exceedingly low, measured relatively strict Appeals. Presumably errors survive smaller. suggesting that, procedure, ritual." 316-317. Far difficult-to-apply largely "collateral-attack ritual" integrity infra, 336-339. So determine, jurisprudence STEWART's dissenting 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1151, 1152, 1153, 566. gave impression somewhat than—if differently from—the appeal. (1947). repeats 313, 319, equate the—in view—broader direct-review endorse despite differences. nn. 11-12. past, justified grounds expertise proceeding, susceptible political pressures convictions. Bartels, Avoiding Comity Errors, Stan.L.Rev. 27, (1976). Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 464, 1209, 1218, 505; Mitchum Foster, 225, 2151, 2162, 705. justifications force context. offenses better able evaluate unpopular distort decisionmaking processes ones inadequacy divested second-guess issues, generate politically motivated seem fortiori. workload regular senior Ninth hire attorneys clerks assist labors. Additional imposed trials, commitment "clear convincing" Addington Texas, 441 418, 1804, 60 323. increase, docket expands accommodate generated greater certiorari. Professor Bator persuasively explained diminishing returns duplicative "merits" cases: "[I]f ever final, notion legality point assignment final competences legality. asked, seek becomes final? Conceding assure truth, repetition chance approximat- ing it? awesomeness shouldn't redetermination sure occurred? "Surely runs, place, terms conservation resources—and simple economic resources, intellectual, moral, resources be, me, job done once, institutions performing another, ask runs way: fitted manner inferior relitigation consist second-guessing, 'count'? Why effort? all, go-around Neither truth. If, then, previous ignored, reasoned institutional so. "Mere iteration kinds damage. imagine subversive judge's sense responsibility, inner conscientiousness subtle art well, indiscriminate someone else. Of appeals. see, functional ethical served allowing recourse unitary supreme acute longer relevant. objectionable second-guessing sake illusory hard enough 'truth.' " Bator, Finality Habeas Corpus Prisoners, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 441, 450-451 (1963). James, Civil 518 (1965). testimony Griffin Bell confirmation hearings Attorney General Senator Scott earlier resigned seat Fifth Circuit, Judge responded: "I rewarding longer. excitement 1960's, load changed, oppressive. minded load, changed. serving longer." Hearings Prospective Nomination B. Bell, General, Senate Committee Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., (1977).

Category: 0