Court Opinion

ID: 9610670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:44:58.012767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:03.308244
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting.
Charges to juries that are allegedly burden-shifting have been a subject of much controversy in this court lately. See Patterson v. State, 233 Ga. 724 and cits.
In a criminal homicide case "accident” is nothing but the absence of mens rea. It is therefore abnormal, irregular, and confusing to say to the jury that the state must prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt and at the same time say to the jury that "accident” must be proven by the defendant to the satisfaction of the jury. I paraphrase what Judge Powell said on the subject in 1907 in Smith v. State, 3 Ga. App. 803 (61 SE 737): The logical absurdity of the proposition is apparent.
It has been generally accepted in common law jurisdictions that the state must prove the accused guilty of the crime charged "beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, in 1969, the reasonable doubt standard was unquestionably raised to constitutional stature by the Supreme Court of the United States. That court said: "Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364 (1969). And in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States said: "Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the burden of . . . convincing the factfinder of his guilt.”
I have concluded that in criminal cases if jury instructions place the burden of proving his defense or any of the elements of his defense upon the accused, or if jury instructions state that the accused must prove his defense or any of the elements of his defense to the "reasonable satisfaction of the jury,” such instructions are burden-shifting and constitutionally impermissible.
*926I acknowledge that this court has, through the years, approved jury instructions that have been what I consider to be "burden-shifting.” I think that such prior approvals are now outdated and should not be followed. I say this because of the evolution of the reasonable-doubt standard to the point where it is now a constitutional protection afforded to every defendant accused of a crime. Until this court holds that burden-shifting charges are erroneous and require the reversal of criminal convictions, such charges will continue to be given in the trial courts in this jurisdiction. And as long as such charges continue to be given in the trial courts, and are approved by this court on the basis of earlier decisions that do not relate to the present "due process of law” requirements, the constitutional rights of defendants in criminal cases will continue to be eroded and, I think, violated.
I would put a stop to burden-shifting jury instructions by holding that they are erroneous and prejudicial to the point of requiring reversal of convictions. We have at long last done just that with respect to the defense of alibi. See Patterson v. State, 233 Ga. 724, supra.
I would hold that the charge given in this case was burden-shifting, that it was confusing to the jury to the point of being prejudicial, and that the appellant is entitled to a new trial free from this error.
I respectfully dissent.