Wentworth v. State
1975 Md. App. LEXIS 313, 29 Md. App. 110, 349 A.2d 421 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While duress is not a complete defense to the intentional killing of an innocent person, it may serve as a mitigating factor that reduces murder to manslaughter. Once a defendant generates evidence of duress, the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to bear the burden of proving the absence of such mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Ann Louise Wentworth and her husband, David Wentworth, visited the home of James Mosley, with whom Dr. Delores Taylor also lived.
- During the visit, David Wentworth accused Mosley of having an affair with Ann Wentworth, then pulled out a gun and ordered Mosley to the floor.
- At her husband's direction, Ann Wentworth retrieved a second gun and bullets from another room.
- David Wentworth took Mosley's wallet, and Ann Wentworth took money from Dr. Taylor's pocketbook and wiped fingerprints from surfaces she had touched.
- David Wentworth announced his intention to take Mosley and Dr. Taylor for a ride and handcuff them to a tree.
- Dr. Taylor seized an opportunity to escape from the home and summoned the police.
- The following morning, Mosley's body was found on a roadside with multiple bullet wounds.
- Ann Wentworth later testified that she only participated in the events due to coercion, stating she was terrified of her husband who was in a 'fit of rage' and feared he would kill both her and Mosley.
Procedural Posture:
- Ann Louise Wentworth was tried in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County after the case was removed from Somerset County.
- A jury convicted Wentworth of second-degree murder, kidnapping, and two counts of armed robbery.
- Wentworth, as appellant, appealed her convictions to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court, arguing the jury instructions were improper.
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 places the burden on a defendant to prove circumstances of mitigation, such as duress, to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter violate the defendant's due process rights by improperly shifting the state's burden of proof?
Opinions:
Majority - Moylan, J.
Yes, such a jury instruction violates the defendant's due process rights. Under Mullaney v. Wilbur, the state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and placing the burden on the defendant to prove mitigation unconstitutionally relieves the state of this burden. The common law has established that duress cannot serve as a complete justification for the intentional killing of an innocent person. However, the court finds persuasive the rationale that duress can function as an 'imperfect' defense, supplying the mitigation necessary to negate the element of malice and thereby reduce murder to manslaughter. Because the appellant generated a genuine jury issue as to duress through her testimony, the State was required to prove the absence of this mitigation. The trial court’s instruction, which told the jury 'The burden is on the Defendant... to reduce murder to manslaughter by showing an absence of malice,' was a direct and unconstitutional shift of that burden, requiring reversal.
Analysis:
This case establishes the doctrine of 'imperfect duress' as a mitigating factor for homicide in Maryland, extending a concept previously applied primarily to imperfect self-defense. The decision reinforces the constitutional mandate of Mullaney v. Wilbur, clarifying that when a defendant raises a credible claim of mitigation—even one that isn't a complete defense—the burden of persuasion remains with the state to disprove it. This precedent significantly impacts trial practice by requiring courts to instruct juries carefully that the prosecution must prove the absence of mitigating circumstances like duress, thereby protecting a defendant's due process rights against improper burden-shifting.
