McKenzie v. Montana

Background

A man in Montana was convicted of multiple crimes arising from one woman’s death, including deliberate homicide, aggravated kidnaping, sexual intercourse without consent, and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to death. At trial, conflicting psychiatric testimony raised whether he could form the required criminal intent. The trial judge repeatedly told the jury it could presume intent from the defendant’s acts.

Reasoning

On appeal the Montana Supreme Court agreed those jury instructions unconstitutionally shifted the burden to the defendant. The state court nonetheless called that error “harmless” and upheld the convictions and death sentence, saying there was “overwhelming evidence” and pointing to the “vicious manner” of the crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for review, leaving the state decision in place. Justice Marshall dissented from the denial and argued the state court failed to properly test whether the unconstitutional instructions could have affected the jury’s verdict.

Real world impact

Because the high court declined review, the Montana convictions and death sentence remained in effect at the time of the opinion. The dissent emphasizes that when a death sentence follows, courts must closely review whether constitutional errors could have affected the result. The dissent also noted the case’s long procedural history with prior remands and said the case was suitable for federal habeas review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, would have granted review, criticized the state court’s harmless-error analysis, and said he would vacate the death sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds.