Burgett v. Texas
389 U.S. 109 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prior conviction obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is constitutionally infirm and cannot be used against a person either to support guilt or to enhance punishment for a subsequent offense.
Facts:
- The State of Texas charged petitioner Burgett with 'assault with malice aforethought with intent to murder'.
- The indictment also alleged four prior felony convictions (one in Texas, three in Tennessee) to potentially subject Burgett to a life sentence under the state's recidivist laws.
- At the start of the trial, the entire indictment, including the allegations of the four prior convictions, was read to the jury.
- During the trial, the prosecutor offered into evidence a certified copy of a Tennessee conviction record which stated on its face that Burgett appeared 'without Counsel'.
- The prosecutor also offered a second, conflicting version of the same Tennessee conviction record that was ambiguous about whether Burgett had counsel.
- The prosecutor also attempted to introduce evidence related to the prior Texas conviction.
Procedural Posture:
- Burgett was indicted in a Texas state trial court on one count of assault and four counts alleging prior convictions for sentence enhancement.
- Burgett's counsel filed a pretrial motion to quash the counts relating to the prior convictions.
- During trial, the judge sustained objections to the prior Texas conviction and one version of a Tennessee conviction, but overruled an objection to a second version of the Tennessee conviction.
- Before submission to the jury, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the prior offenses for any purpose.
- The jury convicted Burgett on the assault charge, and he was sentenced to 10 years, which was not an enhanced sentence under the recidivist statutes.
- Burgett's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Burgett (as appellant) appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the conviction, holding that the judge's instruction cured any potential error.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of evidence of a prior conviction, which is presumptively void for violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, at a jury trial violate the Constitution, even if the jury is later instructed to disregard it?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The admission of a prior criminal conviction that is constitutionally infirm under the standards of Gideon v. Wainwright violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Such a conviction, obtained in violation of the right to counsel, is inherently prejudicial, and its use against an accused erodes the principles of Gideon. Because a silent record cannot be used to presume a waiver of counsel, a conviction record showing the defendant was without counsel is presumptively void. Admitting such evidence is a constitutional error that cannot be rendered harmless by a jury instruction to disregard it, as the accused in effect suffers anew from the deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right.
Concurring - Mr. Chief Justice Warren
Yes. The admission of the void prior convictions created pervasive prejudice that denied the petitioner a fair trial. The focus should be on the effect of the constitutional error on the defendant's rights, not on whether there was 'prosecutorial bad faith'. To expect a jury to completely disregard knowledge of four prior felony convictions, especially without being told why that evidence was invalid, is unrealistic and places too much faith in the fiction of curative instructions. This procedure stripped the trial of due process and is a 'frightful progeny' of the Court's earlier decision in Spencer v. Texas.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. The issue in this case amounts to a later-corrected trial error in the admission of evidence, not a constitutional violation requiring reversal. The prosecutor did not act in bad faith and was following the one-stage recidivist trial procedure approved in Spencer v. Texas. The Supreme Court does not sit as a court of errors and appeals to review every evidentiary ruling in state cases and should therefore affirm the state court's judgment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as established in Gideon v. Wainwright by creating a strong exclusionary rule for convictions obtained in violation of that right. The Court elevates the admission of a constitutionally infirm prior conviction from a mere evidentiary error to a constitutional violation that is 'inherently prejudicial.' This holding curtails the state's power in recidivist proceedings, ensuring that past constitutional violations cannot be used to secure new convictions or enhance sentences. The ruling establishes that a judge's instruction to the jury to disregard such evidence is insufficient to cure the constitutional harm, thereby strengthening procedural protections for criminal defendants.
