Francis v. Franklin (Supreme Court of the US, 1985)
Parties:
Procedural History: Tried in Superior Ct of Bibb County, GA on charges of malice murder and kidnapping. Sole defense=lack of requisite intent to kill. Jury asked for reinstruction on element of intent and definition of accident. Then it returned verdict of guilty.
Franklin unsuccessfully appealed to GA Supreme Ct and then sought relief in fed cts.
Facts: Franklin tried to escape custody while receiving dental care. When he was not reshackled. he seized pistol of an officer and escaped. He forced the dental assistant with him as hostage. When trying to find a getaway car, he knocks on door of Collie's home, a 72 year old man. Franklin was pointing pistol at door when Collie arrived. As Franklin demanded his keys, Collie slammed the door. Franklin's gun went off killing Collie. When Collie's wife came downstairs, he said "might as well kill you," but did not harm her or thwart her escape. He did not hurt Collie's daughter either.
After being captured, Franklin admitted shot victim but denied doing so voluntarily or intentionally. Claimed shots were fired accidentally in response to door slamming. Tried for malice murder, sole defense=lack of intent to kill. Trial judge instructed jury 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... " Jury returned guilty verdict.
Franklin argues 2 sentences in jury charge violate his cons. rights.
Issue: Do the jury instructions violate the 14th amendment requirement that the State prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt?
Rule: "Such shifting of the burden of persuasion [by a mandatory rebuttal presumption] with respect to a fact which the State deems so important that it must be either proved or presumed is impermissible under the due process clause.
Holding: Yes, the jury instructions violate the 14th amendment requirement that the State prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning (Brennan): 1. challenged sentences are cast in language of a command
conclusion; they were told only that the law presumed it." sentences direct jury to presume an essential element of the offense--intent to kill instructions undermine the factfinder's responsibility to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt
2. this case is different from Sandstrom : language here explicitly informs jury that presumptions "may be rebutted" : distinction does not cure problem in the charge though had the jury in Sandstrom understood instructions as creating a mandatory rebuttal presumption, the instructions would've been no less unconstitutional 3. irrebuttable presumption relieves state of its burden of persuasion by instructing jury it must find the presumed element, unless the D persuades it not to make such a finding shifting the burden of persuasion with respect to a fact