Yates v. Evatt

Supreme Court of the United States
500 U.S. 391 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To determine that an unconstitutional mandatory presumption in a jury instruction was harmless error, a reviewing court must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the jury's verdict. The correct inquiry is not whether the jury could have reached the same verdict without the presumption, but whether the verdict actually rendered was surely unattributable to the error because the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

Facts:

Dale Robert Yates and his accomplice, Henry Davis, planned to rob T.P. Wood's Store.
Inside the store, Yates, armed with a handgun, and Davis, armed with a knife, demanded money from the proprietor, Willie Wood, who complied.
At Davis's urging, Yates shot and wounded Willie Wood, then yelled "Let's go" and fled to the getaway car.
Davis remained inside and began struggling with the wounded Willie Wood.
Willie Wood’s mother, Helen Wood, emerged from an adjacent office, saw the scuffle, and grabbed Davis to help her son.
During the three-person struggle, Helen Wood was stabbed once in the chest by Davis and died.
Willie Wood then managed to draw his own pistol and shot and killed Davis.
Yates was prosecuted for Helen Wood's murder under a theory of accomplice liability, with his primary defense being that her death was not a natural and probable consequence of the robbery.

Procedural Posture:

Dale Robert Yates was convicted of murder and other charges in a South Carolina trial court after the judge gave jury instructions containing mandatory presumptions on the element of malice.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the conviction.
Yates filed a state habeas corpus petition, which the State Supreme Court denied.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Francis v. Franklin (Yates I).
On remand, the State Supreme Court found the instruction unconstitutional but denied relief on non-retroactivity grounds.
The U.S. Supreme Court again granted certiorari, reversed, and held its precedent must be applied retroactively, remanding for further proceedings (Yates II).
On the second remand, the Supreme Court of South Carolina acknowledged the instructions were unconstitutional but affirmed the conviction again, ruling the error was harmless.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for a third time to review the state court's harmless-error determination.

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 state court apply the correct harmless-error analysis for an unconstitutional mandatory presumption by asking whether the jury 'would have found it unnecessary to rely' on the presumption, rather than asking whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Souter

No, the state court applied a deficient standard of review. To satisfy the harmless-error standard from Chapman v. California, the inquiry is not whether the jury would have found it unnecessary to rely on the unconstitutional presumption, but whether the error contributed to the verdict. A reviewing court must ask whether the jury actually rested its verdict on evidence establishing the presumed fact (in this case, malice) beyond a reasonable doubt, independently of the presumption. This requires determining if the force of the other evidence is so overwhelming as to leave it beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict would have been the same without the presumption. Here, the evidence of Davis’s intent to kill Mrs. Wood was not overwhelming; the record shows she joined an ongoing struggle and suffered a single stab wound, which could have been inadvertent. The state court's factual finding of a 'brutal multiple stabbing' was unsupported by the record. Therefore, the unconstitutional instructions were not harmless error.

Concurring - Justice Scalia

No, the state court's analysis was incorrect, and the error was not harmless, but the majority's reasoning is flawed in part. The 'deadly weapon' presumption was harmless because the instruction itself stated the presumption 'is removed' once circumstances are put into evidence, which they were here. However, the 'unlawful act' presumption was not harmless. The majority's approach of reviewing the entire record is wrong for this type of error. Because the instruction required the jury to determine whether the presumption was rebutted, rather than whether the state proved malice beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury was examining the evidence with the wrong question in mind. It is impossible to say the jury actually found guilt on the proper basis, so the error can never be harmless regardless of what the record contains.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies and strengthens the harmless-error analysis required for unconstitutional mandatory presumptions in jury instructions. It explicitly rejects a more lenient standard that would focus on whether a jury could have convicted without the error. By requiring courts to find that the verdict was 'surely unattributable' to the error, the ruling raises the bar for prosecutors seeking to uphold convictions tainted by such constitutional violations. This holding reinforces the principle that the jury, not the appellate court, must find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and errors that relieve the state of this burden will only be excused in the face of truly overwhelming evidence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Yates v. Evatt (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature