Court Opinion

ID: 9655024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:58:18.476468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.597296
License: Public Domain

HEFFERNAN, J.
(dissenting). The intoxication instruction is clearly erroneous because it contains language shifting the burden of persuasion on intent onto the defendant. This court has held that jury instructions that could reasonably be understood as “placing on the defendant the burden of persuading the jury that he lacked the specific intent to kill due to intoxication” denied the defendant his right to due process and required reversal of his conviction. State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423, 426, 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981).
*334The instructions in this case are not identical to the instructions in Schulz, but, as the court of appeals recognized, the differences are not constitutionally significant. The error here is at least as egregious as that in Schulz. Because “a reasonable juror could have misunderstood the allocation of the burden of proof” (102 Wis. 2d at 431), I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
I am authorized to state that Justice Abrahamson joins in this dissent.