Goddard v. State

• Decision Date: 16 December 1977
• Citation: 382 A.2d 238
• Parties: Regent GODDARD, Defendant below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff below, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 238

382 A.2d 238

Regent GODDARD, Defendant below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted Sept. 12, 1977.

Decided Dec. 16, 1977.

Upon appeal from Superior Court.

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

Arlen B. Mekler, Chief of the Appellate Division, Wilmington, for defendant below, appellant.

Thomas J. Capano, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for plaintiff below, appellee.

Before HERRMANN, C. J., DUFFY and McNEILLY, JJ.

McNEILLY, Justice:

Defendant appeals his conviction by a Superior Court jury of murder, rape and conspiracy, all in the first degree, ¹ alleging three errors in the proceedings below. Defendant contends that the Trial Court improperly instructed the jury concerning the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication by unconstitutionally placing the burden of proving the defense on the defendant. ² Also assigned as error is the Trial Court's failure to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication as related to the conspiracy charge, and the allegedly excessive sentence imposed for that crime. We affirm the conviction, but reverse and remand for a reduction of the sentence on the conspiracy count to meet the statutorily mandated limits.

I

The facts relevant to the legal issues of this case are undisputed. Defendant confessed that on February 14, 1976, he raped and murdered his landlady. The offenses took place in Smyrna, Delaware, at an apartment defendant and his co-conspirators, Dale Shirk and Robert Jones, rented from the victim. Defendant forced the victim into the apartment where, in the presence of Jones, he raped her and then strangled her with a scarf. Subsequently, the body was placed in a car and transported to Elkton, Maryland, where it was dropped by the side of the road.

At trial defendant raised the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication, provided for in the 1976 version of 11 Del.C. § 421, claiming that at the time of the offenses he was so inebriated that he was unable to form the requisite intent to kill required to convict him of murder in the first degree. Because voluntary intoxication was denominated as an affirmative defense, the burden of proving the defense was placed on the defendant. 11 Del.C. § 304. ³ The Trial Judge submitted the case to the jury with instructions in accord with the directives of sections 304 and 421. Citing Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), defendant asserts that by placing the burden on him to prove the defense of voluntary intoxication, the Delaware statutes and the jury instructions based thereon unconstitutionally violate his right to due process of law. Defendant's reliance upon Mullaney is misplaced as we are of the opinion that the Delaware statutory scheme is distinguishable from the constitutionally defective law struck down in Mullaney. Examined in the light of the most recent pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of burdens of proof in criminal cases, the Delaware law clearly meets federal constitutional standards. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). The law in question fully comports with Delaware constitutional requirements. Rivera v. State, Del.Supr., 351 A.2d 561, appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 877, 97 S.Ct. 226, 50 L.Ed.2d 160 (1976).

II

The Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution requires that in a criminal trial the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). The Delaware Constitution requires at least as much. See Del. Const. Art. I, § 7. ⁴ The rationale of the Winship case prescribes an analysis of both the operation and effect of criminal laws and procedures as applied by the State, and of the interests of the State and the defendant as affected by the allocation of the burden of proof made by those laws. Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra. In Mullaney the Winship rationale was applied to a Maine criminal statute which required malice, in the sense of lack of provocation as an element of murder. The Maine statutory scheme allowed the jury to presume malice from the commission of any deliberate, cruel act by one person against another suddenly or without considerable provocation. The defendant was given the opportunity to rebut the presumption by proving by a preponderance of evidence that he acted not with malice, but in a heat of passion, in which case the charge was reduced to manslaughter. The Supreme Court found that the process of presuming an element of a crime unless that element is disproved by the defendant violated both the mandate of In re Winship, supra, and the proscriptions of the Due Process Clause.

The differences between the Maine and Delaware laws are readily apparent and constitutionally significant. Under the provisions of the Delaware Criminal Code no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction delineating the aforestated burden of the State, and the defendant may produce whatever credible evidence he has to negate the existence of any element of the crime charged. 11 Del.C. §§ 301, 302. ⁵ In addition the Delaware Criminal Code provides a variety of affirmative defenses ⁶ which a defendant must both raise and bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence, as defined in the Code. See 11 Del.C. § 304, and page 5 of this opinion. Thus Delaware law requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of a crime, and only if that burden is met may a jury render a verdict of guilty. Several affirmative defenses, separate and distinct from the elements which make up the crime charged, are available to the criminal defendant for purposes of mitigation or exculpation.

In Rivera v. State, Del.Supr., 351 A.2d 561, appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 877, 97 S.Ct. 226, 50 L.Ed.2d 160 (1976), 11 Del.C. § 401 which classified mental illness as an affirmative defense, with the resulting allocation of burdens of proof, was unsuccessfully attacked as violative of the Due Process Clause. This Court held section 401 constitutional, and on appeal the United States Supreme Court dismissed the case as not presenting a substantial Federal question. In Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), the Court reaffirmed its opinion that no federal issue was raised under the facts of Rivera, and further expressed unwillingness to reconsider Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952) in which the Court held that there was no constitutional requirement that the State shoulder the burden of proving the sanity of the defendant. The Patterson Court found no conflict between the requirements of In re Winship, supra, and the holdings of Leland or Rivera, and also stated their institutional position in regard to the State's function of policing its citizens for criminal activity by explaining:

"It goes without saying that preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government, Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 134, 74 S.Ct. 381, 98 L.Ed. 561 (1954) (plurality opinion), and that we should not lightly construe the Constitution so as to intrude upon the administration of justice by the individual States. Among other things, it is "normally within the power of the State to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out, including the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion," and its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless "it offends some principle of justice so deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. " Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 523, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 798, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952), Snyder v. Massachusetts, 201 U.S. 97, 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)."

Patterson v. New York, supra. The principle of law which emerges from the cases is that once the requirements of In re Winship, supra, are met, the State is free to designate additional defenses, and allocate the burden of proof pertaining to those defenses, as they see fit. Patterson v. New York, supra.

We conclude that Goddard's conviction under Delaware law does not deprive him of his State and Federal rights to due process of law. The Lower Court required that all elements of the crime of murder be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt, in accordance with the dictates of the Delaware Criminal Code. Thus the basic procedural safeguards necessary to satisfy State and Federal due process were met. Admittedly, the statute making voluntary intoxication a defense to criminal charges was ambiguously worded in terms of negating intent, and intent is a traditional element of a crime. However, any apparent conflict between the due process requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and section 421 is a false conflict when examined in the light of the other sections of the Criminal Code which make clear that the constitutional level of proof must be met by the State. Because the State was held to the burden of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with constitutional standards, no error of law was committed below.

III

Defendant alleges that the Trial Court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defense of voluntary intoxication as it relates to the conspiracy charge. Nowhere in the record of this case does it appear that defendant either requested on appropriate instruction, or objected to the instructions as given to the jury. The failure to object constitutes a waiver of defendant's right to raise the issue on appeal, Superior Court Criminal Rule 30(a); Flamer v. State,...