Johnson v. Bennett, 32
Decision Date | 16 December 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 32,32 |
Parties | Gale H. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. John E. BENNETT, Warden |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Ronald L. Carlson, Iowa City, Iowa, for petitioner.
William A. Claerhout, Des Moines, Iowa, for respondent.
In 1934, petitioner was indicted for murdering a policeman in Burlington, Iowa. Petitioner claimed that he was innocent and that he had not been present at the scene of the crime. At the trial, several witnesses testified that petitioner had been in Des Moines, 165 miles away from Burlington, on the day that the crime was committed. The trial judge instructed the jury that for the petitioner to be entitled to an acquittal on the ground that he was not present at the scene of the crime, the petitioner must have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not present.1 The jury found petitioner guilty of second-degree murder, and petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. State v. Johnson, 221 Iowa 8, 264 N.W. 596, 267 N.W. 91 (1936).2
In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner argued, among other points, that the State had denied him due process of law by placing on him the burden of proving the alibi defense. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa rejected this argument and denied the petition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 386 F.2d 677 (1967). We granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the alibi instruction, along with other issues. 390 U.S. 1002, 88 S.Ct. 1247, 20 L.Ed.2d 102 (1968).3 After we granted certiorari the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, held in another case that the Iowa rule shifting to the defendant the burden of proving an alibi defense violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stump v. Bennett, 398 F.2d 111 (1968).4 In view of that holding, we vacate the decision in this case and remand to that court for reconsideration.5
1 The instruction was as follows:
2 See also State v. Johnson, 221 Iowa 8, 21, 267 N.W. 91 (1936), in which the Iowa Supreme Court corrected certain errors made in its original opinion.
3 The other issues were whether the State had supp essed evidence favorable to petiti...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Leaster
...5 Cush. 295, 319, 324, and that they did not in express terms put the burden of proof on him. Compare Johnson v. Bennett, 393 U.S. 253, 254--255, 89 S.Ct. 436, 21 L.Ed.2d 415; Stump v. Bennett, 398 F.2d 111, 115--123 (8th Cir.), cert. den. sub nom. Bennett v. Stump, 393 U.S. 1001, 89 S.Ct. ......
-
Johnson v. Bennett
...procedures his argument as to the unconstitutionality of the instruction." 398 F.2d at 122-123. The three judges who had comprised the Johnson panel dissented in Stump. In two separate opinions, 398 F.2d at 123 and 128, they (a) agreed that alibi is not an affirmative defense; (b) agreed th......
-
Smith v. Smith, Civ. A. No. 14304
...certiorari and subsequently remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the intervening Stump decision. Johnson v. Bennett, 393 U.S. 253, 89 S.Ct. 436, 21 L.Ed.2d 415 (1968). On remand, the Stump decision was followed. Johnson v. Bennett, 414 F.2d 50 (8th Cir. In light of these develo......
-
Van Pilon v. Reed
...Cir.1967) (doubting, without deciding, whether trial court may limit issues), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 393 U.S. 253, 89 S.Ct. 436, 21 L.Ed.2d 415 (1968).3 Although we hold that a district judge may not confine our review to issues listed in the certificate of probable cause, w......