DocketNumber： Civ. A. 78-30-AMER
Judges： Owens, Deen, Clark, Stolz
Filed Date： 8/22/1979
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
Petitioner M. W. Holloway having been convicted in Crisp County Superior Court of voluntary manslaughter for the March 18, 1975, killing of Joe Crumbley and having had that conviction and his sentence of twenty years affirmed both on direct appeal, 137 Ga.App. 124, 222 S.E.2d 898 (1975), and after collateral attack and state habeas procedures, 241 Ga. 400, 245 S.E.2d 658 (1978), petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, alleging that he was unconstitutionally convicted because there is not sufficient evidence to support his conviction for manslaughter and because the trial court’s charge to the jury unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proving every essential element of the offense from the prosecution—upon whom it constitutionally rests—to the defendant-petitioner.
I. Sufficiency of Evidence of Guilt.
The standard by which this court must evaluate the evidence in a state criminal trial to determine whether the petitioner has been accorded constitutional due process was recently reformulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Jackson v. Virginia,- U.S. —, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Instead of determining whether or not there is “any evidence” to support petitioner’s conviction, the court must now go further and satisfy itself that the evidence in the record could reasonably support a finding of guilt be
Having carefully read the entire trial transcript in light of this revised standard, it is this court’s considered judgment for the reasons well stated by Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Braswell Deen in his dissenting opinion, concurred in by Judges Clark and Stolz, Holloway v. State, 137 Ga.App. 124, 127, 222 S.E.2d 898 (1975) (Deen, J., dissenting), that the evidence in this record could not and does not reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Deen’s opinion is specifically incorporated into this opinion and is attached hereto as an appendix. This court notes that the state’s evidence, elicited only through defense cross-examination of the state’s witness, the investigating G.B.I. agent, revealed that the deceased victim had a blood alcohol content of 0.12 at the time of death. (R. 162). Under Georgia law 0.10 blood alcohol content gives rise to a presumption that the person was under the influence of alcohol. Ga.Code Ann. § 68A-902.1(bX3). This fact lends support to the petitioner’s version that the victim came to the house intoxicated and began a fight. In this court’s considered judgment this conviction for manslaughter was not supported by evidence that would rationally lead to the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It must therefore, be set aside.
II. Trial Court’s Instructions.
An even more compelling defect in the petitioner’s conviction is found in the trial court’s jury charge. The court, as respondent suggested, has considered the trial court’s charge as a whole and for reasons hereinafter stated finds it constitutionally defective on three related bases. First, by its liberal use of presumptions the trial court’s charge has impermissibly invaded the fact finding function of the jury by conclusively presuming the petitioner to be guilty. Secondly, the instruction effectively relieved the prosecution of the burden of proving each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and shifted to the petitioner the burden of disproving his guilt. Finally, the charge impermissibly placed upon the petitioner the burden of proving self-defense.
The critical portions of the charge are as follows:
I charge you every person is presumed to be of sound mind and discretion, but the presumption may be rebutted.
I charge you that the acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the product of the person’s will, but the presumption may be rebutted.
A person of sound mind and discretion is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, but the presumption may be rebutted.
I charge you that a person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention, but the trier of facts, and that’s the Jury, may find such intention upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted. (R. 251-52).
# * * * * *
I charge you further that the law presumes every intentional homicide to be malicious until the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, of justification, of mitigation, or excuse and the burden is upon the slayer whenever an intentional homicide has been proven to make out such circumstances to the satisfaction of the Jury unless they appear from the evidence produced against him. If, however, the proof, if there be any, that shows the homicide itself discloses that the homicide was done without malice, this presumption that the homicide is malicious does not exist, but if the accompanying proof, if there be any, does not disclose that the killing was done without malice, then it is incumbent upon the*1366 slayer to show that it was done without maliee.
I charge you, however, that this presumption which arises against the slayer where an intentional homicide is shown does not arise against the defendant unless it be first shown to a moral and reasonable certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the intentional slayer. Unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral and reasonable certainty that this defendant is the intentional slayer, this presumption does not arise in this case and has no application to the case.
I charge you that when a killing is proved to be the intentional act of the defendant, the presumption of innocence with which he enters upon the trial is removed from him and the burden is upon him to justify or mitigate the homicide unless the evidence introduced against him shows justification or mitigation or excuse, but as I have charged you heretofore, the evidence in justification or mitigation or excuse may be found in the evidence introduced against him. If there be no evidence introduced to show justification or mitigation or excuse, and if the evidence introduced shows the homicide committed as charged in the Indictment, the burden would then be upon the defendant to show justification or mitigation or excuse.
(R. 253-254). (Emphasis supplied).
A. Trial Court erred in instructing that the petitioner is presumed to intend the consequences of his acts.
On June 18, 1979, the United States Supreme Court decided Sandstrom v. Montana, — U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39. That decision has been called to the attention of counsel, commented upon by counsel and considered by this court in reaching its conclusion on this issue. In Sandstrom, the defendant was tried in state court for murder; he admitted killing the victim but defended on the ground that he lacked the mental capacity to have “purposely and knowingly” killed her. The petitioner was nevertheless convicted of deliberate homicide, and the conviction was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the trial court’s instruction that “[t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts.” -U.S. at -, 99 S.Ct. at 2453, 61 L.Ed.2d at 44.
The proper analysis of the nature and effect of presumption according to the Court “requires careful attention to the words actually spoken to the jury . for whether a defendant has been accorded his constitutional rights depends upon the way in which a reasonable jury could' have interpreted the instruction.” Id. - U.S. at-, 99 S.Ct. at 2454, 61 L.Ed.2d at 45. The Court rejected the state’s argument that the charge merely created a permissible inference, holding that a reasonable jur- or might well have viewed the instruction as mandatory. The Court also rejected the argument that the instruction though mandatory merely shifted the burden to the defendant to produce “some evidence” to rebut the presumption that he intended the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts. The court noted that the jury was never told that the presumption could be rebutted by some evidence, or even that it could be rebutted at all.
[A] reasonable jury could well have interpreted the presumption as “conclusive," that is, not technically as a presumption at all, but rather as an irrebuttable direction by the court to find intent once convinced of the facts triggering the presumption. Alternatively, the jury may have interpreted the instruction as a direction to find intent upon proof of the defendant’s voluntary actions (and their “ordinary” consequences), unless the defendant proved the contrary by some quantum of proof which may well have been considerably greater than “some” evidence—thus effectively shifting the burden of persuasion on the element of intent.
Id. - U.S. at---, 99 S.Ct. at 2456, 61 L.Ed.2d at 46-47.
B. The trial court’s instruction impermissibly shifted the burden of persuasion of each and every element of the crime from the State to the petitioner.
A related ground for setting aside the conviction is found in that portion of the instruction previously quoted which states that every intentional homicide is presumed to be malicious until the contrary appears and that the burden is upon the defendant to prove circumstances of alleviation, excuse or justification to the satisfaction of the jury. (R. 252-54).
The petitioner argues that the charge shifted the burden of persuasion to him to disprove the unlawfulness of the homicide by showing that it occurred in self-defense. This shifting of burden effectively relieved the prosecution of its duty to prove the critical elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court make it clear that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the prosecution prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Sandstrom, supra; Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). The principles established in these cases have been held to have retrospective application. See, Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977); Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972). A state, however, may place the burden of proof of an affirmative defense on the defendant. Patterson v. New York, supra. Therefore how the state defines the crime and how it allocates the burden of proof of affirmative defenses are of critical importance to this inquiry.
Georgia defines murder as follows: (a) A person commits murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears, and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
This situation is precisely the same as the one disapproved in Sandstrom, supra. The trial court may not instruct the jury to presume elements of the crime from the proof of the slaying and additional facts not themselves establishing the elements of unlawfulness and malice, and then leave it to the accused to prove that unlawfulness and malice aforethought were lacking from his actions.
In Cole v. Stevenson, 447 F.Supp. 1268 (E.D.N.C.1978), a case precisely on point, the district court held unconstitutional North Carolina’s burden-shifting charge which is the same as the charge in this case. See, State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E.2d 575, rev’d on other grounds 432 U.S. 233, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977).
North Carolina allows the presumption of “malice” and “unlawfulness” to be raised when the state proves a wound was “intentionally inflicted upon the victim which proximately caused death.” By employing the presumption of unlawfulness, the state does far more than “create an inference that procedurally shifts the burden of going forward with the proof” . . . instead, the accused must prove by a “preponderance” that he acted in self-defense. The state, therefore, does not bear the burden to first prove unlawfulness but can merely rest upon the presumption. Also, the North Carolina self-defense charge allows the presumption of one ingredient of an offense when another is shown. This is a far cry from the New York law discussed in Patterson which requires the state to prove each element of the murder charge without presuming or inferring any facts, and only when each of these' is proven does the defendant bear the burden of proving an affirmative defense.
Cole v. Stevenson, supra, at 1277. Since Georgia law has chosen to include unlawfulness and malice aforethought as elements of the crime of murder, the prosecution must undertake to prove all these elements beyond a reasonable doubt without benefit of presumptions at least when some evidence has been adduced to negate those elements.
C. The trial court’s instruction impermissibly placed the burden of proof of self-defense on the petitioner.
Although the trial court’s instruction of the elements of self-defense does not allocate the burden of proof to either party, the murder charge can reasonably be read as placing the burden of proof of self-defense on the petitioner. While Patterson v. New York, supra, would appear to allow a state to place the burden of persuasion of affirmative defenses, including self-defense, upon the defendant, a fundamental conflict exists in allocating to the prosecution the burden of proving unlawfulness and, at the same time, allocating to the accused the burden of proving self-defense; self-defense and “unlawful” being mutually exclusive determination of the same, question, i.e., justification vel non for the crime. The problem has been succinctly stated as follows:
In spite of Patterson’s apparent dilution of the force of Mullaney, recent state and federal court opinions are nearly unanimous in their view that self-defense, while an “affirmative plea”, is not a “true” affirmative defense, i. e., while a defendant may be required to raise the issue of self-defense by some evidence, once such issue is raised, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime charged was not committed in self-defense. The rationale behind this view is that since an essential element of most crimes, as defined by statute or common law, is that an act to be criminal must be “unlawfully” done, and since an act done in self-defense is, by definition “lawful”, the prosecution must prove the absence of self-defense in order to prove an essential element of the crime that is, unlawfulness. The obverse of the statement is more easily stated, viz, to require the defendant to prove self-defense—(lawfulness)—would relieve the prosecution from proving an essential element of the crime charged—(unlawfulness).
Porter v. Leeke, 457 F.Supp. 253, 255 (D.S.C.1978).
After the petitioner’s conviction the Georgia Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion holding that:
. a finding of self-defense negates the essential element of unlawfulness within the meaning of our murder and manslaughter statutes. For the State to meet its required burden of proving the element of unlawfulness, it must therefore prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of justification.
Johnson v. State, 137 Ga.App. 740, 742-43, 224 S.E.2d 859, 861 (1976).
It remains to be determined whether the erroneous instructions are nevertheless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The only witness to the homicide was the defendant himself and the state’s ease otherwise consisted of circumstantial evidence. There were circumstances supporting the self-defense claim. The shooting occurred on the premises of the temporary residence of the defendant. The victim came to the house voluntarily; the petitioner did not seek him out. The victim had been drinking heavily on the day of the shooting. A hunting knife was found near the body of the victim, and there is no evidence to show that it was other than the victim’s. All these facts are consistent with the self-defense theory and while there are inconsistencies in the petitioner’s version, they do not overwhelmingly preclude the possibility of self-defense. The jury did not find the petitioner guilty of murder as charged, but of voluntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense, a fact which casts doubt on the strength of the state’s case and suggests a compromise between murder and acquittal by the jury. Furthermore, three judges of the Georgia Court of Appeals strongly dissented from the affirmance of the petitioner’s conviction on the ground that the evidence adduced against the petitioner was insufficient to support the conviction. Holloway v. State, 137 Ga.App. 124, 222 S.E.2d 898 (1975) (Deen, J. dissenting, concurred in by Clark and Stolz, JJ.). Under these circumstances this court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous instructions did not contribute to the petitioner’s conviction. Finally the correct general instruction on the prosecution’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not cure the unconstitutional portions of the charge. See Sandstrom, supra.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondent release the petitioner from custody immediately after the judgment of this court becomes final either by failure of the respondent to appeal this judgment or after affirmance upon appeal. The court in the meantime will entertain a motion by the petitioner for admission to bail pending final disposition of the matter upon appeal.
APPENDIX
HOLLOWAY v. STATE, 137 Ga.App. 124, 222 S.E.2d 898 (1975).
. Since the petitioner’s conviction is being set aside for insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment preeludes his retrial. See, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978).
. The standard of proof, proof to the satisfaction of the jury, is equivalent to proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the burden is on the petitioner to do more than present “some evidence” to contradict the presumption. He bears the burden of persuasion on the question. See, State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E.2d 575, rev’d on other grounds 432 U.S. 233, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1970).
. The court does not hold that the jury may not be instructed that they may infer unlawfulness and malice from the proven fact of an intentional homicide in all cases. The duty may be placed upon the accused to produce some evidence of excuse, justification or mitigation before the obligation devolves to the prosecution to prove unlawfulness and malice beyond proving an intentional homicide. See Mullaney, supra, n. 28; State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E.2d 575, 589 (1977). In this case, however, the petitioner did adduce sufficient evidence of self-defense or justification to trigger the prosecution’s burden to prove unlawfulness and malice.
. The respondent argues that since the petitioner was convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, Mullaney and its progeny are inapplicable because self-defense and justification bear no direct relationship to the elements of voluntary manslaughter. Under Georgia law, Ga.Code Ann. § 26-1102, voluntary manslaughter disposes of only the malice aforethought element of murder but retains the “unlawfulness” element. Self-defense or justification, therefore, is also a defense to voluntary manslaughter. Johnson v. State, 137 Ga. App. 740, 224 S.E.2d 859, vacated and remanded, 237 Ga. 276, 227 S.E.2d 345, rev’d on other grounds 140 Ga.App. 343, 231 S.E.2d 75 (1976); Reeves v. Reed, 452 F.Supp. 783 (W.D.N.C.1978).
. Although Johnson was vacated by the supreme court, 237 Ga. 276, 227 S.E.2d 345 (1976), and reversed on remand by the court of appeals, 140 Ga.App. 343, 231 S.E.2d 75 (1976), on the ground that a supreme court decision abolishing all burden-shifting charges had prospective application only, see State v. Moore, 237 Ga. 269, 227 S.E.2d 241 (1976), the holding was never disapproved. This court feels constrained to adopt the first Johnson decision especially since the United States Supreme Court has held that state courts might apply changes in state decisional law precipitated by Mullaney retrospectively. Hankerson v. North Carolina, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Lynch, 477 Pa. 390, 383 A.2d 1263 (1978).
. See Berrier v. Egeler, 583 F.2d 515 (6th Cir. 1978) (absence of self-defense is an element of murder under Michigan law which prosecution must prove); In re Doe, R.I., 390 A.2d 920, 925 (1978) (“. . . Mullaney prohibits a state