Legal Document

441 U.S. 786 99 Supreme Court Reporter 2088 60 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 640 Commonwealth of KENTUCKY, Petitioner,v.Harold WHORTON. Number 78-749. May 21, 1979. Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, See 444 887, 100 186. PER CURIAM. 1 In Taylor versus Kentucky, 436 478, 98 1930, 56 468 (1978), this reversed a criminal conviction resulting from trial in which the judge had refused to give requested jury instruction on presumption innocence. Relying its understanding that decision, Kentucky present case held such an is constitutionally required all trials, and failure it cannot be harmless error. Ky., 570 South Western Reporter, 2nd 627. We granted certiorari consider whether correctly interpreted our holding Taylor. 439 1067, 832, 59 31. 2 * The respondent was charged three separate indictments with commission several armed robberies. At trial, numerous eyewitnesses identified as perpetrator. Weapons, stolen money, other incriminating evidence found respondent's automobile were introduced evidence. did not take stand his own defense. only behalf given by wife sister who offered alibi testimony concerning whereabouts during time one 3 counsel instructed innocence.1 This judge. An given, however, effect could return verdict guilty if they beyond reasonable doubt committed acts indictment requisite intent. 4 10 counts first-degree robbery, wanton endangerment, attempted robbery. sentenced consecutive terms imprisonment totaling 230 years. 5 On appeal, argued he been denied due process law violation Fourteenth Amendment reason judge's refusal A divided agreed, interpreting Court's decision "to mean when innocence asked for there reversible error." S.W.2d, at 633.2 6 Two justices filed dissenting opinions. their view, should understood dealing factual situation presented, establishing constitutional rule instruct requires automatic reversal conviction. Since these concluded received fair would have affirmed convictions. II 7 While innocence, fashion new requiring every case. Rather, opinion focused related overall fairness considered entirety. 8 observed, example, instructions "Spartan," U.S., 486, S.Ct., 1935, prosecutor improperly referred otherwise made remarks dubious propriety, id., 486-488, 1935-1936, against defendant weak. Id., 488, 1936. "[T]he combination skeletal instructions, possible harmful inferences references indictment, repeated suggestions petitioner's status tended establish guilt created genuine danger convict petitioner basis those extraneous considerations, rather than trial." 487-488, 9 It under circumstances court law. Indeed, expressly limited facts: "We hold facts court's resulted right guaranteed Due Process Clause Amendment." 490, 1937 (emphasis added). explicitly holding, detailed discussion defendant's belie any intention create short, does itself violate Constitution. Under Taylor, must evaluated light totality circumstances—including jury, arguments counsel, weight overwhelming, relevant factors—to determine trial. 11 thus erred absolutely inquiry directed determination deprived circumstances. 12 Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 13 so ordered. 14 Mr. Justice STEWART, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 15 No principle more firmly established system justice accorded re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368, proof guilt. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions believe equally innocent until has proved guilty. 16 Almost 85 years ago, said: "The favor accused undoubted law, axiomatic elementary, enforcement lies foundation administration law." Coffin States, 156 432, 453, 394, 403, 39 L.Ed. 481. Only ago reaffirmed "is basic component justice." Estelle Williams, 425 501, 503, 96 1691, 1692, 48 126. also Cool 409 100, 104, 93 354, 357, 34 335. And after all, what above else guarantees. 17 sense serves remind burden doubt, distinct function. Quite apart considerations proof, "cautions put away minds suspicion arises arrest, arraignment, reach conclusion solely legal adduced." Judge Wigmore, Evidence § 2511, Page 407 (3d ed. 1940). because defendant, regardless circumstances, entitled determined properly him where timely request made.1 18 There may cases affected outcome If can drawn Cf. Chapman California, 386 18, 87 824, 705; Harrington 395 250, 89 1726, 23 284. possibility, vacate remand court, but consideration presented here error.2 lawyer following given: presumes crime. He begins clean slate, no him. permits nothing before support charge accused. So alone sufficient acquit unless members are satisfied accused's case." endangerment convictions state-law grounds here. least Member precisely that. (Brennan, J., concurring). remand, course free matter state question error context. Watson Commonwealth, 579 103 (Ky.).

Classification Label: 0