Legal Document

414 U.S. 141 94 Supreme Court Reporter 396 38 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 368 Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner,v.Hugh Kyle NAUGHTEN. Number 72—1148. Argued Oct. 16, 1973. Decided Dec. 4, Syllabus At respondent's criminal trial, the trial judge charged, in accordance with a state statutory provision: 'Every witness is presumed to speak truth. This presumption may be overcome by manner which testifies, nature of his or her testimony, evidence affecting character, interest, motives, contradictory presumption.' Respondent was convicted and, following exhaustion remedies, brought this federal habeas corpus action. The Appeals, reversing District Court, concluded that 'presumption truthfulness' instruction placed burden proving innocence upon defendant and thus did not comport due process. Held: cannot considered isolation when viewed, as it must be, context overall charge, court twice gave explicit instructions affirming declaring State's obligation prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so infect entire resulting conviction violated requirements Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, challenged having neither shifted proof nor negated accorded under law. In re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368, distinguished. Pp. 144—150. 476 Federal Reporter, 2nd 845, reversed. John W. Osburn, Salem, Or., for petitioner. Ross R. Runkel, respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Naughten tried an crime armed robbery. principal consisted testimony owner grocery store respondent had robbed at gunpoint corroborative another eyewitness. addition, two police officers testified been found near scene robbery stolen money located car neighboring parking lot. A few items clothing, identified belonging respondent, were also introduced. took stand himself called any witnesses testify behalf. 2 charged jury innocent 'until proved doubt,' then continued: 3 evidence, App. 16. 4 instructed proof, defining detail concept doubt; later, request, he additional on innocence.1 returned verdict guilty, sentenced term penitentiary. 5 Appeals affirmed conviction, finding inclusion judge's charge error. denied petition review. His remedies exhausted, sought relief Oregon, asserting presumption-of-truthfulness doubt forced instead innocence. noted similar met disfavor courts appeals, but observed '(those) cases (did) involve appeals from convictions.' Recognizing 'proper law,' stated: 6 'In event, giving deprive petitioner federally protected constitutional right.'2 7 Ninth Circuit reversed.3 That court, noting question 'has almost universally condemned'4 own behalf, went say: 8 'Thus, clear effect place repugnant American offensive fair notion process law.' 847. 9 We granted certiorari consider whether offended established notions constitutionally trial. 10 Although apparently became increasingly used prosecutions publication Judge Mathes' Jury Instructions Forms Criminal Cases, 27 F.R.D. 39, 67 (1961),5 appears have quite independent origin practice. given Naughten's directly based § 44.370 Revised Statutes, provision first passed 1862. Only four years ago, upheld validity against attack. versus Kessler, 254 Or. 124, 458 Pacific 432 (1969). time extensive criticism possible such Nonetheless, though stated 'it might preferable instruct where does take truth,' there no error 'if accompanied explanation how can overcome.' Id., 128, P.2d, 435. followed holding case. 11 has idea 'dilute,' 'conflict with,' 'seem collide 'impinge upon' defendant's innocence;6 'clash with' 'shift' prosecution's proof;7 'interfere' 'invade' province determine credibility.8 fact, some cases, determined undesirable entitled new ground alone.9 reading these however, indicates primarily concerned directing inferior within same jurisdiction refrain because thought confusing, little positive value jury, simply undesirable. appellate were, effect, exercising so-called supervisory power review proceedings reverse judgments concludes wrong. 12 Within unitary jurisdictional framework will, course, require conform mandates, likewise follow procedures deemed desirable viewpoint sound judicial practice although no-wise commanded statute Constitution. Thus even substantial unanimity among ought district their respective jurisdictions not, without more, authority makes invalid Amendment. Before overturn used, merely undesirable, erroneous, 'universally condemned,' right guaranteed 13 determining we accept outset well proposition single judged artificial isolation, viewed charge. Boyd States, 271 104, 107, 46 442, 443, 70 L.Ed. 857 (1926). While mean itself never rise level error, see Cool 409 100, 93 354, 34 335 (1972), recognize judgment commonly culmination includes witnesses, argument counsel, receipt exhibits judge. only one many instructions, several components result conviction. 14 case But gave, once twice, doubt. recognizing other given, nevertheless declared 'there specifically directed attack said effected cure.' F.2d, believe analysis puts cart before horse; failed isolate cure particular ailing instruction, rather infected violates 15 recently held requires (1970). judge, presiding over juvenile stealing $112 woman's pocketbook, sufficient convict 'preponderance evidence' standard insufficient 'beyond doubt' standard. 360 n. 2, 1070. Since New York compelled evaluation more lenient standard, guilty. reversed, stating '(t)he reasonable-doubt plays vital role scheme procedure,' id., 363, 1072, explicitly 'that protects accused except every fact necessary constitute charged.' 364, 1073. 16 imply retreat doctrine Winship observe different us now. There made express required emphasized re-emphasized course complete instructions. contends that, despite truthfulness impliedly him. do agree. 17 Certainly its language shifts negates It would perhaps matter abstract logic contend suggesting should tangential respect 'impinge' bearing just those weight types familiar subjects are way designed get off dead center give guidance evaluate frequently confusing conflicting heard. well-recognized long-established function assist emasculated conjectural emanations Winship. 18 remembered 'review action expressing what will best further security administration justice demands appropriate deliberative basic exercise jurisdiction.' McNabb 318 332, 340, 63 608, 613, 87 819 (1943). case, while informed about truthfulness, witness, relating witness' motivation falsely. remained free collective reject find trustworthy plausible. Furthermore, acknowledging could discredited words, freed undue pressure call belief engender disbelief witnesses. 19 here fully duty Whatever undercutting clearly propositions may, theoretical matter, resulted dimension. terms requirement supra, offense 'same principle rooted traditions conscience our people ranked fundamental,' Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 105, 54 330, 78 674 (1934), render invalid. 20 Reversed. 21 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. 22 guilty assault, after pertinent part, follows: 23 'The law provides certain disputable presumptions evidence. 24 'A deduction expressly directs facts you along However, since only, they out-weighed equaled Unless equaled, accepted true. presumes innocent, follows until 26 presumption. 'Burden Proof. doubt.' (Emphasis added.) 28 timely objection taken part instructing truthfulness. my view permitted establish therefore 29 spoken truth, unless 'overcome' demeanor, impeachment, earlier rebutted 'out-weighed equaled' presumption, otherwise 'the direct(ed)' Considered together, untruthfulness demonstrated making appear likely false.1 rested entirely eyewitnesses officers, ante, 142, himself, practical court's convert preponderance evidence.2 30 reduction persuasion conflicts guarantee shall 'except 1073, 'unacceptable risk' existed understood instruction—that defense properly if true doubt—as requiring believed 102 3, 356. Over dissent asserted parsing engaging semantical distinctions considering whole, 107—108, 358—359, 'fundamentally inconsistent' decision, possibility exculpatory testimony—that created minds jurors—had rejected believable 357. Thus, evil unacceptable risk jurors understand out hand which, considered, guilt. suffered less deprivation when, unequivocal terms, statements prosecution entertained doubts veracity testimony—but conclude false. 31 Moreover, defective. Turner 398, 642, 610 (1970), approved inference 'knowledge' possessing smuggled heroin, "(c)ommon sense' . tells who traffic heroin inevitably become aware product deal smuggled,' 417; time, possession unstamped cocaine prima facie drug purchased original stamped container, 'reasonable possibility' 'stole obtained package actual thief.' 423—424, 653, 656 (emphasis added). instant common sense dictate sworn tell truth so, surely fail so.3 called, permit each element crimes elements mandate winship 'every crime' See Barnes 412 837, 854, 2357, 2367, 37 380 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). 32 Viewed objectionable. To sure—as Cool—the ignore concerning credibility Had necessarily contradicted dealing needed dissipated. is, view, unambiguously put side heard supported doubt.4 & N Immigration Nationality Decisions infirm. 33 circumstance, inhering harmless Chapman California, 386 18, 24, 824, 828, 705 (1967). reduces factfinding man good name freedom. U.S., 363—364, 1072—1073. impresses solemn responsibility avoid being misled suspicion, conjecture, mere appearance, arrive certainty proper resolution relevant factual issues. Here, truth-finding invaded diminished. When compromised, 'made contribution conviction.' Harrington 395 250, 255, 89 1726, 1729, 284 (1969) (dissenting opinion). Rather, accused's 'infraction treated error.' 23, S.Ct., 827. draw failure so. Alternatively, assuming proportions overwhelming detailing reasoning, disagreed, showing harmless. disposition reach issue. 846 (1972). rehearing equally divided vote. cited nine various all expressed disapproval instruction. Birmingham, 447 1313 (C.A.10, 1971); Stroble, 431 1273 (C.A.6, 1970); McMillen (C.A.1, 1967), cert. denied, 390 1031, 88 1424, 288 (1968); Dichiarinte, 385 333 (C.A.7, 1967); Johnson, 371 800 (C.A.3, Persico, 349 (C.A.2, 1965). Safley, 408 603 (C.A.4, 1969); Harrison 387 614 (C.A.5, 1968); Stone 123 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 379 146 (1967) (Burger, J.). None dealt proceeding. modified Mathes E. Devitt, Practice 9.01 (1965), included Devitt Blackmar, (2d ed. 1970). vol. 1, 12.01, accompanying note. See, e.g., 804; 1278; 339; 126 U.S.App.D.C., 370, 147. Meisch, 370 768, 774 1966); 1315. supra; supra. Birmingham somewhat here. told controlled '(u) nless outweighed contrary.' Apparently regarding consideration witnesses' motivations structuring conceivable If manner, ensuing arguments unconstitutionality fortiori. circuit disapproved often objections values. Bilotti, 649 Evans, 398 159 Reid, 469 1094 1972); Gray, 464 632 (C.A.8, Cupp, 845 (C.A.9, particularly impact offered testimony. 605; Boone, 401 659, 661 162; 147; 800, 805 1966). situation introduced rebuttal parties imponderable equal. 33. origins truthfully extend back least into 19th century, 144—145, widely willful violation oath expose 'at temporal eternal punishment.' T. Starkie, Law Evidence (10th Am. 1876). common-law rules incompetency applied disqualify individuals testifying reasons today grounds impeachment. generally Holdsworth, History English 177—197 (1926); McCormick, Evidence, chapter 1972). rationale underlying substantially undercut. majority's reliance (1926), 146—147, misplaced. 'ambiguous' statement curative 443. disputed Anti-Narcotic Act dimension, relied

Classification Label: 0