Court Opinion

ID: 9471783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:41:13.460073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:34.931417
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from Section VI of the majority opinion in this ease that deals with the Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), issue. Drake, as is usual when this issue is presented, argues that the trial court’s jury instruction on the question of intent imper-missibly shifted to him the burden of proof on that question. The majority rejects this *1001argument as one “without merit” and, while not specifically stating so, seems to conclude that even if the instruction did unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof, it was harmless error because proof of intent was not essential to this case. The majority concludes that intent was not essential because Drake’s murder conviction might have been based on the felony murder doctrine rather than on a jury determination that Drake intentionally murdered his victim. The jury was instructed on felony murder as well as on malice murder, and it returned a general verdict. In my judgment, the majority on this issue is clearly wrong. Even if Drake’s murder conviction was based on the felony murder doctrine, intent is an essential element of the underlying felony conviction, armed robbery. O.C.G.A. § 16-8-41.1 Thus, an unconstitutional intent instruction affects a murder conviction based on the felony murder doctrine in the same manner that it affects a conviction for malice murder. Moreover, even though Drake’s defense did not turn on the question of intent — he maintained an alibi defense — the state still carries the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on every essential element of every charge brought against Drake, which on both the murder and armed robbery charges included the element of intent.
The challenged instruction in this case is nearly identical to the one held unconstitutional in Franklin v. Francis, 720 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1983), and to the ones held constitutional in Tucker v. Francis, 723 F.2d 1504 (11th Cir.1984), and in Corn v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549 (11th Cir.1983). The burden-shifting instruction in this case was as follows:
The Defendant enters upon the trial of this case with the presumption of innocence in his favor, and that presumption remains with him throughout the trial until and unless the State carries the burden of proving the material allegations of this indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. Record at 480-81.
Ladies and gentlemen, I charge you that a criminal intent is a material and necessary ingredient in any criminal prosecution. I charge you that the acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the products of a person’s will and a person of sound mind and discretion is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act, but both of these presumptions may be rebutted. I charge you, however, that a person will not be presumed to act with criminal intent but the trials (sic) of fact may find such intent from consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act to which the accused is here prosecuted. You are the triers of the facts; therefore, it is a question of fact solely for your determination as to whether or not there was a criminal intent on the part of the Defendant, considering the facts and circumstances as disclosed by the evidence and deducting the deductions which might reasonably be drawn from these facts and circumstances. Now while a criminal intention may be proven in more than one way, the question of whether the Defendant did act with criminal intention is finally and always a question for you, the Jury, to determine. Record at 484-85. (Emphasis added).
In Sandstrom, the Supreme Court determined that, when applied to essential elements of criminal offenses, conclusive presumptions and mandatory rebuttable presumptions that a reasonable juror may interpret as requiring the defendant to present more than just some evidence to rebut, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that the state prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 442 U.S. at 519, 523-24, 99 *1002S.Ct. at 2458-59. Such presumptions violate the Constitution because they “ ‘conflict with the overriding presumption of innocence with which the law endows the accused and which extends to every element of the crime’, and ... ‘invade [the] factfinding function’ which in a criminal case the law assigns solely to the jury.” Id. at 523, 99 S.Ct. at 2459 (quoting In re Winskip, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). In a case in which intent was an element of the crime charged, the Court in Sandstrom rejected a jury instruction that “the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts.” Id. 442 U.S. at 517, 99 S.Ct. at 2455. From this presumption, jurors reasonably could have concluded that they were to find against the defendant on the element of intent if they found proof of one element of the crime — causing death — even if insufficient proof were offered on other elements — the voluntariness and ordinary consequence of defendant’s action. Id. at 523, 99 S.Ct. at 2459. Similarly, viewing the instruction as a mandatory rebuttable presumption, jurors reasonably could have concluded that “upon proof by the State of the slaying, and of additional facts not themselves establishing the element of intent, the burden was shifted to the defendant to prove that he lacked the requisite mental state.” Id. at 524, 99 S.Ct. at 2459.
Moreover, Sandstrom concluded that the unconstitutional instruction was not cured by general instructions that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. Id. at 518 n. 7, 99 S.Ct. at 2456, n. 7. These instructions were “not rhetorically inconsistent with a conclusive or burden-shifting presumption. The jury could have interpreted the two sets of instructions as indicating that the presumption was a means by which proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to intent could be satisfied.” Id.
In Franklin v. Francis, supra, the Court rejected an instruction nearly identical to the one employed in this case that the majority opinion now approves. As in Sandstrom, the Court in Franklin found no cure in the trial court’s additional jury charges that (1) criminal intent is not presumed and (2) the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime. 720 F.2d at 1211-12.
The majority opinion in this case virtually ignores Franklin and relies instead on Corn v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549 (11th Cir.1983), which is at least distinguishable and possibly wrong. Corn challenged an instruction nearly identical to the one the majority approves in this case. The panel in Com approved the instruction because it “unequivocally stated” that it could be rebutted and because it contained a statement that a person is not presumed to act with criminal intent. Additionally, in Corn the trial court specifically stated that the prosecution bears the burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt. These inconsistent instructions may have left the jury confused about where the burdens lay. As the court in Franklin noted, when inconsistency is apparent, it is impossible to tell which instruction the jury followed or whether they applied something in between. 720 F.2d at 1212.
Even if Corn is not wrong, it is distinguishable. Unlike the case now before this panel, the trial judge in Corn, after giving the objectionable instruction, gave an instruction specifically identifying the burdens on the element of intent. The trial court said:
I charge you that intention is an essential element of any crime and that the burden is on the State to prove intention beyond a reasonable doubt. While the burden is not on the Defendant to disprove intention, nonetheless, if he produces some competent evidence of insanity, ... then the burden falls upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was sane at the time of the alleged crime....
708 F.2d at 569-70 app.
This may satisfy the requirement discussed in Franklin that the instruction explain by what quantum of evidence the defendant must rebut any presumption established by the instruction, 720 F.2d at 1212, because it specifically states the extent of the prosecution’s burden on intent. Assuming that a subsequent instruction can cure the error of the earlier challenged instruction, the assumption is irrelevant in Drake’s case because it appears that no such curative instruction was given to Drake’s jury. Thus, in the case now before us, the majority approves the instruction simply because the presumption that it establishes is rebuttable and because it states that criminal intent cannot be presumed. The rebuttable nature of the presumption *1003is not enough to save it. Sandstrom itself refutes such an argument. The Court in Sandstrom specifically rejected mandatory rebuttable presumptions that require the defendant to do anything more than just produce “some” evidence in rebuttal. Sandstrom, supra, 442 U.S. at 517, 99 S.Ct. at 2455-56. It is not enough that the presumption is rebuttable; the critical question is whether the jury was made aware that the burden on the defendant, if it must be articulated that way, is a very low production burden and not a burden of persuasion. In the case now before us this was not specifically pointed out to the jury.
I dissent.

. O.C.G.A. § 16-8-41(a) provides: “A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon.”