United States v. Stephen Roderick McRae
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15224, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 503, 593 F.2d 700 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction that permits, but does not require, a jury to infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon 'in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances' does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to the defendant, particularly when the charge as a whole repeatedly affirms the government's burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Stephen McRae and his wife, Nancy McRae, were experiencing marital difficulties.
- On numerous occasions prior to the killing, McRae told various witnesses that he intended to kill his wife, including one threat to 'blow her brains out' with his rifle.
- On the day of the incident, McRae and his wife had an argument, after which he told her to be gone by the time he returned.
- McRae returned to their home, sent their children into the bathroom, retrieved his rifle from a rack, and procured a round of ammunition from the bedroom.
- In the living room, McRae loaded the rifle and chambered the round while talking to his wife, who was sitting in a chair.
- As McRae started to walk toward his wife, the loaded rifle discharged at point-blank range, killing her instantly.
- After the shooting, McRae ejected the spent cartridge, pocketed it, and drove to a neighbor's house without checking on his wife or seeking aid for her.
- McRae then drove to the barracks and told a fellow Military Policeman that he had just killed his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen McRae was indicted for second-degree murder in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (trial court) for a killing that occurred on a military reservation.
- At trial, McRae admitted to the shooting but claimed it was an accident.
- The jury returned a verdict finding McRae guilty of second-degree murder.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced McRae to life imprisonment.
- McRae (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and certain evidentiary rulings.
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 that permits the jury to infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon 'in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances' unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove an essential element of the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Gee, Circuit Judge
No. The jury instruction does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to the defendant. The instruction at issue is distinguishable from the prohibited 'Mann charge' because it does not create a legal presumption that the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Instead, it advises the jury that they 'may find' malice from the use of a deadly weapon but are 'not obligated so to find.' This permissive language, combined with repeated instructions that the government bears the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt, ensures that no burden is placed on the defendant to produce evidence of his innocence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between a permissible instruction on a factual inference and an impermissible instruction that creates a burden-shifting presumption. It establishes that courts can guide juries on inferences they may draw from evidence, such as inferring malice from the use of a deadly weapon, as long as the language is clearly permissive and not mandatory. The ruling reinforces that the constitutionality of a jury instruction depends on the charge as a whole, where repeated emphasis on the government's burden of proof can cure potentially ambiguous language. The case also serves as a strong admonition against prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, even while concluding that such misconduct may constitute harmless error when evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
