MULLANEY V WILBUR, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW - AN EXAMINATION OF THE LIMITS OF LEGITIMATE INTERVENTION

• NCJ Number: 40881
• Journal: Texas Law Review Volume: 55 Issue: 2 Dated: (JANUARY 1977) Pages: 269-301
• Author(s): R J ALLEN
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 33 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Texas
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION TO MULLANEY V WILBUR (1975), PARTICULARLY THE COURT'S RELIANCE ON THE PREVIOUS IN RE WINSHIP (1970) RULING, TO DEMONSTRATE FLAWS IN THE WINSHIP DOCTRINE.

Abstract

IN WINSHIP, THE COURT HELD THAT THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EVERY FACT NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE THE CRIME. THE WILBUR COURT RULED THAT THE MAINE HOMICIDE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT PROVE PROVOCATION VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AND CITED THE RULING IN WINSHIP. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE INTERESTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF THE BEYOND A REASONABLE STANDARD IN WINSHIP DO NOT COMPEL THE SAME RESULT IN WILBUR. THE MAJOR PROBLEM IDENTIFIED IN HIS ANALYSIS IS THE CREATION IN WINSHIP OF A FEDERAL POWER TO SUPERVISE THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE STATES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE CONSTRAINTS OF FEDERALISM ALLOW A STATE TO STRUCTURE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON ANY PARTICULAR MITIGATING FACT IN ANY MANNER IT DESIRES SO LONG AS THE PUNISHMENT IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE CRIME, REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THAT FACT.(AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...EB