Davis v. Kemp

1985-06-03

Headline: Court denies review of a murder-conviction challenge over jury instructions that shifted the burden on intent, leaving the lower-court ruling intact and not resolving whether such errors can be harmless.

Holding: The Court denied review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, leaving the lower-court ruling in place and declining to resolve whether burden-shifting intent instructions can ever be harmless error.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling intact.
Keeps unresolved whether burden-shifting intent instructions can be harmless.
Permits continued disagreement among lower courts on this recurring issue.

Topics: jury instructions, intent in criminal trials, trial errors, death penalty

Summary

Background

A defendant convicted of first-degree murder challenged jury instructions that told jurors a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts and that malice may be presumed when homicide is shown. The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held those instructions unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof on intent and malice under earlier decisions like Sandstrom v. Montana and Francis v. Franklin.

Reasoning

The central question is whether an instruction that shifts the burden on intent can ever be treated as a harmless mistake. The lower court’s majority concluded the error was harmless because the defendant’s main defense was that he was not present, not that he lacked intent. Some judges dissented, arguing intent remained an issue and the error could not be harmless. The Supreme Court denied review, with one Justice concurring that no federal question was presented and other Justices dissenting and urging review.

Real world impact

Because the high court declined to take the case, the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling stands for now and the broader legal question—when, if ever, such burden-shifting instructions can be excused—remains unresolved nationally. The decision leaves lower courts and litigants to continue wrestling with recurring trial-instruction disputes.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White would have granted review to settle the issue; Justices Brennan and Marshall would have granted review and vacated the death sentence, reaffirming their view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional.