Norvell, Sheriff, St. Lucie Jail, Et Al. v. Miller

Background

Richard Miller, a contractor, was charged with misapplication of funds related to building several homes in 1978. Florida law said that failing to pay for labor or materials after receiving payment for a specific job "shall constitute prima facie evidence of intent to defraud." At trial the judge read that language to the jury. Miller was convicted, given six months in jail and 14½ years’ probation, and his conviction was later affirmed. He then filed a federal habeas petition; the district court denied relief, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed and questioned the statute’s constitutionality.

Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit concluded the jury instructions could be read as creating a "mandatory rebuttable presumption," which the court said conflicts with prior Supreme Court decisions limiting such presumptions. Because the instructions mirrored the statute, the appeals court also held the Florida statute unconstitutional. Chief Justice Burger’s dissent argues that the Florida Supreme Court has interpreted the law as creating only a permissive inference, which a jury may accept or reject, and that under earlier Supreme Court guidance a facial challenge should fail when a statute permits a permissive inference.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the lower-court ruling stands in this case. That outcome leaves the Eleventh Circuit’s reversal and its judgment about the statute in place for Miller and prevents the State from retrying him under the same statutory language as instructed. The dissent warned that states and lower courts should be allowed to interpret the statute before it is struck down nationwide.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor, dissented from the denial of review and would have allowed full consideration of whether the statute is facially invalid.