Court Opinion

ID: 9854882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:16:04.933334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:33.756840
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Chief Justice.
James Moore was convicted of robbery and on appeal the Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, reversed such conviction upon the ground that the court’s instruction placed the burden of persuasion upon the defendant as to his purported defense of coercion. This court granted certiorari.
1. The issue here is whether a jury instruction placing any burden of persuasion upon a defendant in a criminal case violates substantive due process. Historically the defendant carried this burden in *270asserting an affirmative defense and we find no error in the charge in this case. However, in recent years it has been .conceived that the presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt dictate that no such burden may be placed upon a defendant. Some trial courts continue to use such "burden shifting” charges. Other trial courts decline to use them. The members of this court as well as the members of the Court of Appeals have divided on the issue. Consequently the law in this regard has become unsettled and there is a lack of uniformity. In all candor we believe the question is largely academic under modem criminal practice. Apparently the Council of Superior Court Judges entertain thoughts that "burden shifting” charges are inappropriate and not essential to criminal justice. Its recently published pattern jury instructions in criminal cases appear to contain no such charges with the possible exception of the general pattern instruction on accident. Criminal Charge Book, p. 30, Part 1, 16 (A). To the contrary the pattern charge on affirmative defenses provides, "... but once an issue of an affirmative defense is raised, the burden of proof rests upon the State as to such issue as it does with respect to all other issues in the case.”
After careful consideration this court has concluded that the trial courts would welcome a simple straightforward rule which can be applied easily and would lessen the possibility of error. Also we are of the opinion that the desirability of uniformity in jury instructions outweighs adherence to a rule which is of doubtful value, probably makes overly nice legal distinctions which are difficult for many juries to follow, and so far as can be discerned has little, if any, influence upon verdicts reached in particular criminal cases. Therefore we hold that henceforth charges which place any burden of persuasion upon the defendant in criminal cases shall not be given and such charges will be deemed erroneous and subject to reversal, absent harmless error and invited error. We point out that usual charges on presumptions are not considered "burden shifting” charges, nor are charges that such presumptions may be rebutted. We reiterate that this conclusion is prospective *271and applies only to cases tried after the final date of this decision.
Argued May 10, 1976
Decided June 29, 1976
Rehearing denied July 16, 1976.
Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.
John IF. Timmons, Jr., Jack H. Affleck, for appellee.
2. Furthermore, in the present case the defendant was charged with armed robbery and convicted of robbery. The robbery occurred when, according to all the evidence, four persons were riding in one automobile. The defendant was sitting in the front seat on the right side while the accomplice was sitting in the back seat on the left side. The evidence showed without dispute that the accomplice placed a knife at the driver’s throat, forced him to stop the automobile, and directed that he give his money to the defendant. The defendant got out of the automobile and while the accomplice was still inside the automobile and holding a knife at the driver’s throat, waited on the accomplice to get out of the car and then they both ran. Neither the state’s nor the defendant’s evidence showed that any threat was made by the accomplice toward the defendant, nor that the accomplice had any other weapon, and no explanation was made by the defendant as to why he did not run prior to the time the accomplice got out of the automobile. Under such circumstances there were no facts to show that the defendant’s, so-called fears of injury were reasonable and were fears of immediate violence being inflicted upon him. Compare Burns v. State, 89 Ga. 527 (7) (15 SE 748) (1892). Accordingly, any charge that would have authorized the jury to acquit the defendant because he was coerced into aiding the accomplice in the commission of a crime could not constitute reversible error in this case.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Ingram and Hill, JJ., who concur specially, and Gunter, J., who dissents.