NCJ Number
59069
Journal
Yale Law Journal Volume: 88 Issue: 7 Dated: (JUNE 1979) Pages: 1325-1407
Date Published
1979
Length
83 pages
Annotation
A FRAMEWORK IS SUGGESTED FOR DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEFENSES AND PRESUMPTIONS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW.
Abstract
THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD HAS REMAINED UNCHALLENGED AS THE PROPER CRITERION OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STANDARD, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO CHALLENGES CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ALLOWING THE PROSECUTION TO USE PRESUMPTIONS IN THE PLACE OF PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE, AND IN COMPELLING THE DEFENDANT TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN ESTABLISHING EXCULPATORY FACTS. A RULE IS PROPOSED THAT WOULD REQUIRE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE BASIS FOR IMPOSING PUNISHMENT AND VALIDATING PRESUMPTIONS. EFFORTS TO TREAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS A MERELY PROCEDURAL MATTER ARE FLAWED TO THE EXTENT WHICH THEY FAIL TO CONSIDER THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PENAL LAW. SIMILARLY THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD HAVE BEEN INSUFFICIENT IN ADVANCING A MORE SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPTION OF THE STANDARD. THE DECISION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN IN RE WINSHIP (1970), WHICH HELD THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROTECTS THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD, PLACES ON THE STATE THE BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR EVERY FACT RELEVANT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT AND AFFECTING PRESUMPTIONS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. THE SCOPE OF WINSHIP ASSERTS A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE IMPOSING OF PENALTIES, AND EXPLICITLY REQUIRES THE INTERACTION OF THE PROOF RULE AND THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE DEFINING OF CRIMES. ILLUSTRATIVE PROBLEMS CONCERNING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND PRESUMPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. A CHART OF STATE PROVISIONS THAT SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION TO THE DEFENDANT IS APPENDED. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES SUPPLEMENT THE TEXT. (TWK).