Court Opinion

ID: 9667509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:47:36.881464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:02.747384
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I do not believe that the jury in this case, or any reasonable jury, could have believed that the burden of persuasion with respect to the element of intent had been shifted to the defendant.
This jury was instructed repeatedly that the state had to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and intent was defined as an element of the crime.
The potential effect or impact of a jury instruction upon the deliberative process must be gauged by viewing the jury instructions in their entirety. Moes v. State, 91 Wis.2d 756, 768, 284 N.W.2d 66 (1979); Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-47 (1973).
The defendant’s allegation of his state of mind due to alcohol consumption is just one factor, along with all other factors, in the case for the jury to consider in deter*448mining whether the state has met its burden of proof in proving the defendant’s intent.
I would affirm the conviction and the decision of the court of appeals.