Spencer v. Israel, Warden

Background

A man named Amos G. Spencer was tried for first-degree murder. At his trial the judge twice told the jury that when a violent assault with a dangerous weapon leads to death, the law presumes the attacker intended the death unless circumstances rebut that presumption. Spencer sought permission to appeal and a certificate of probable cause from the lower court, but that court denied his request. Spencer then asked the Supreme Court to review his case.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to take the case and denied the petition for review. The opinion announcing denial does not explain the Court’s view of the instruction. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, wrote a dissent arguing that the jury instruction created a mandatory presumption of intent. He cited earlier Supreme Court decisions saying the State must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and said the instruction conflicted with those precedents. Marshall also noted three federal judges had found identical instructions unconstitutional in other cases.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to review the case, the lower-court outcome stands and the Supreme Court did not correct the instruction in this particular appeal. The dissent signals ongoing concern that some jury instructions may relieve prosecutors of the burden to prove intent. This ruling is not a final ruling on the instruction’s legality in other cases; future courts could revisit the issue.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall’s dissent emphasizes that the instruction describes a mandatory presumption and argues the Court should have granted review to resolve the conflict with prior decisions.