Guthrie v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Civ. No. K-78-852.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. No. K-78-852.
• Citation: 518 F. Supp. 546
• Parties: Walter H. GUTHRIE # 117801 v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

518 F. Supp. 546

Walter H. GUTHRIE # 117801 v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY.

Civ. No. K-78-852.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

June 29, 1981.

Benson E. Legg, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. of Md., and Stephen N. Rosenbaum, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., for defendant.

FRANK A. KAUFMAN, Chief Judge.

This case involves issues which are posed by the Supreme Court's opinions in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) relating to burden of proof and, in connection therewith, presumptions and the shifting of burden.¹ Those opinions have retroactive effect, as made clear in Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977), holding Mullaney retroactive and Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972), holding Winship retroactive. The doctrine of Sandstrom would appear to have been anticipated by Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197, 362 A.2d 629 (1976).

Having exhausted his available state remedies, Guthrie seeks federal habeas corpus relief for the first time in connection with his conviction for murder in the first degree after a jury trial on June 7-9, 1971 in the Circuit Court for Garrett County, Maryland, Judge Hamill presiding. Guthrie was charged with first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter, and unsuccessfully interposed pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Guthrie was subsequently sentenced to a life term by Judge Hamill.

During the trial Guthrie testified in his own defense that on October 13, 1970, the day of the alleged offense, after quitting his job in Baltimore, he hitchhiked from Baltimore to north of Cumberland, riding in three different cars with three different drivers. The last ride was in the car driven by the victim, Aul. Guthrie testified that he and Aul had a few drinks of liquor and beer en route and that thereafter Aul, who was driving, laid his hand on Guthrie's leg, that Guthrie told him that he "did not play that kind of stuff," but that nevertheless, a few minutes later, Aul "started again." Guthrie testified that he again told Aul to cease and that, subsequently, he (Guthrie) tried to get his bags out of the car, but that when he (Guthrie) did so, Aul reached under the seat, came up with a small caliber revolver, and told Guthrie that he (Aul) would kill Guthrie if Guthrie tried to leave. Guthrie testified that he thought that the gun was real and that Aul would do as he had said, that he (Guthrie) got his pocketknife out of his pocket and that when Aul got out of the car, Guthrie knocked Aul's gun to the side, at which time Aul fired two shots and he (Guthrie) "used the knife on Mr. Aul's stomach." Guthrie testified that he "remembered nothing more."² Guthrie was arrested four days later, on October 17, 1970, in Nevada driving Aul's car.³

The Jury Instructions

Judge Hamill's jury instructions cover some 23 pages of transcript. In those instructions, Judge Hamill began by stating that the "burden of proof is upon the State to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt."⁴ As to Guthrie's plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, Judge Hamill informed the jury as follows:⁵

The law in this State is that every person is presumed to be sane until the contrary is established. Where the issue of insanity is raised as a defense in a criminal case, the State is not required to prove the defendant sane, unless substantial evidence of insanity has been produced by the defense; then sanity, like any other fact material to the question of guilt, must be proved by the State beyond reasonable doubt. If you believe and find that the defense has produced substantial evidence of insanity on the part of the defendant at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, then in order for you to find him sane, you must believe and find that the State has proved him sane beyond reasonable doubt.

With regard to the defense of drunkenness, the Court instructed the jury as follows:⁶

Now, the defendant in this case has interposed drunkenness as a defense, and I am now going to read you the law with regard to drunkenness: The court instructs the jury that voluntary drunkenness is not a defense to crime, although whenever the actual existence of any particular motive, purpose or intent is a necessary element to constitute any particular species or degree of crime, the trier of facts, that's the jury, may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act.

And further along that line: The accused must do more than simply raise the issue of drunkenness to establish a defense. He must persuade the triers of fact, that is the jury, that under the circumstances, he was so intoxicated as to be incapable of entertaining the specific intent or of possessing the mental state which is an essential element of the crime for which he is being prosecuted. To establish a valid defense, the defendant must show that he was so intoxicated that he was robbed of his mental faculties and he will be considered criminally responsible as long as he retains control of his mental faculties sufficient to appreciate what he is doing.

The Court also gave the following self-defense instruction:⁷

To put it another way, you are instructed that it is the law that when a person believes that he is in imminent danger of suffering serious bodily injury, or death, at the hands of another, that person may defend himself to the extent of killing the other; you are further instructed that it is for you to determine whether a reasonable and prudent person, similarly situated, would have believed that he or she was in imminent danger of suffering serious bodily injury, or death, at the hands of another. If you find that the defendant in this case had reasonable ground to believe, and did in fact believe, that he was in imminent danger of suffering serious injury, or death, at the hands of the deceased at the time he killed him; and if you further find that any reasonable and prudent person similarly situated, with all the attending circumstances, would have believed that he was in imminent danger of suffering serious bodily injury, or death, at the hands of the deceased, then the defendant would be entitled to be acquitted.

Thereafter, the Court repeated several times that the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.⁸ After briefly listing the five possible verdicts the jury might reach, the Court instructed the jury as follows:⁹

In this connection i. e., the five possible verdicts, you are instructed that murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice is defined as the intentional doing of a wrongful act to another without legal excuse or justification. It includes any wrongful act done willfully or purposely and may be inferred when there is intent to inflict great bodily harm or when one willfully does an act the natural tendency of which is to cause death or great bodily harm. The law presumes all unlawful and felonious homicides to be committed with malice aforethought and to constitute murder. Under this presumption, if it is established that a killing was done with willful intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm without legal excuse or justification, then malice would be established and the law would presume the offense to constitute murder. The law further presumes that all murder is murder in the second degree.

The burden is upon the State in the first instance to prove that the murder was done willfully and with intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. If you find that the State has met that burden in this case, then the law would presume it to be murder in the second degree, unless you further find that the State has met the additional burden of raising it to first degree murder by proving all of the elements that are necessary to constitute first degree murder; and the burden is on the accused to reduce the presumption of second degree murder to manslaughter.

In order for the State to elevate the presumption of second degree murder to first degree murder, you must find that the State has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated or committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a robbery. It must be willful, deliberate and premeditated. Those are the elements required for first degree murder.

In defining the above terminology, the Court of Appeals has said that to be willful there must be a specific purpose and design to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. To be deliberate there must have been a full and conscious knowledge of the purpose to kill or inflict great bodily harm. To be premeditated the design to kill must have preceded the killing by an appreciable length of time; that is, time enough to deliberate. It is not necessary that deliberation or premeditation shall have been conceived or shall have existed for any particular length of time before the killing. If, therefore, the killing is not the instant effect of impulse, and if there is hesitation or doubt to be overcome, and a choice to be made as a result of thought, however short, the determination between the intention and the act is sufficient to characterize the crime as deliberate and premeditated murder in the first degree.

If you find that the State has proved these aforementioned elements beyond reasonable doubt; that is, the actual intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, the fully formed purpose to kill or inflict great bodily harm, with sufficient time for deliberation and premeditation, and you are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this act was not the

...