Anderson, Warden v. Harless (459 U.S. 4)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 1, 1982 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 459 U.S. 4 · 103 S. Ct. 276
- Decided
- November 1, 1982
- Term
- October Term 1982
- Vote
- 6–3
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. Respondent was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed respondent’s conviction, Peo ple v. Harless, 78 Mich. App. 745, 261 N. W. 2d 41 (1977), and the Michigan Supreme Court, on review of the record, denied respondent’s request for relief. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. Respondent then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He alleged, inter alia, that the trial court’s instruction on “malice”— a crucial element in distinguishing between second-degree murder and manslaughter under Michigan law — was unconstitutional. In particular, respondent focused on the following language from the trial court’s lengthy charge: “Malice is implied from the nature of the act which caused the death. Malice can be implied from using the weapon on another person. You are not obligated to reach the conclusion, but you must imply malice if you find death was implied [sic] by the use of a gun against another.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 59a. Relying primarily on Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979), the District Court held that this instruction unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to respondent and was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. 504 F. Supp. 1135 (1981). The…
Excerpt of a 18,524-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.