Francis v. Franklin
471 U.S. 307 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction that creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption as to an essential element of a crime, such as intent, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it unconstitutionally relieves the State of its burden to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Raymond Lee Franklin, an inmate, was at a dentist's office with other prisoners when he escaped custody.
- Franklin seized an officer's pistol and took the dentist's assistant hostage.
- He approached the home of a 72-year-old man, Collie, and demanded his car keys while pointing the pistol at the door.
- As Collie slammed the heavy wooden door shut, Franklin's gun discharged.
- The bullet traveled through the door and struck Collie in the chest, killing him.
- A second shot was fired seconds later, which traveled upward through the door and into the ceiling.
- Franklin claimed that he did not intend to shoot the victim and that the gun fired accidentally in response to the door slamming.
- His sole defense to the malice murder charge was a lack of the requisite intent to kill.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Lee Franklin was tried in the Superior Court of Bibb County, Georgia, a state trial court, on charges of malice murder and kidnaping.
- A jury found Franklin guilty of murder, and he was subsequently sentenced to death.
- Franklin appealed his conviction and sentence to the Georgia Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Franklin's petition for state postconviction relief was denied.
- Franklin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which was denied.
- Franklin (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit (with Francis, the warden, as appellee) reversed the District Court, holding the jury instructions were unconstitutional and ordering that the writ be issued.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Eleventh Circuit, with Francis as the petitioner and Franklin as the respondent.
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 a jury instruction stating that a person of sound mind is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, even if the presumption is rebuttable, violate the Due Process Clause by unconstitutionally shifting the burden of persuasion for the element of intent to the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. A jury instruction that creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption on an element of a crime violates the Due Process Clause. The challenged instruction, stating that a person 'is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts,' uses the language of command. A reasonable juror could have interpreted this instruction as mandatory, requiring them to find intent unless the defendant persuaded them otherwise, which improperly shifts the burden of persuasion from the State to the defendant. General instructions about the presumption of innocence and the State's overall burden of proof do not cure this error, because a juror could see the presumption as the specific method by which the State satisfies its burden for the element of intent. Furthermore, a subsequent contradictory instruction that 'a person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention' is insufficient to cure the error, as a reviewing court has no way of knowing which of the two irreconcilable instructions the jury followed.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No. The challenged language, when viewed in the context of the charge as a whole, did not create an unconstitutional burden-shifting presumption. The trial court repeatedly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. More importantly, the sentence immediately following the challenged language explicitly stated that 'A person will not be presumed to act with criminal intention.' A reasonable juror, considering these instructions together, would not have concluded that the burden of persuasion on intent was shifted to the defendant.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The Court's analysis is hypertechnical and needlessly extends the holding of Sandstrom v. Montana. A reasonable juror, hearing the entire charge, would not have been misled into shifting the burden of proof. The Court improperly isolates two sentences while ignoring numerous other instructions clarifying that the State bears the burden of proof and the defendant has no burden to prove anything. The Court's reasoning about how a juror might reconcile conflicting instructions 'defies belief' and attributes a level of legal sophistication to lay jurors that is unrealistic. The standard for constitutional error should be whether it is likely a juror was misled, not whether they could possibly have been, and under that standard, the conviction should stand.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms and clarifies the holding of Sandstrom v. Montana, making it clear that even a rebuttable mandatory presumption on an essential element of a crime is unconstitutional. The decision solidifies the principle that the prosecution's burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be diluted by jury instructions that shift the burden of persuasion to the defendant, even temporarily. It also sets a high bar for curing such a defective instruction, holding that general boilerplate language about the burden of proof or even directly contradictory instructions are insufficient without specific, explanatory language that resolves the ambiguity in a constitutionally sound manner.
Unlock the full brief for Francis v. Franklin