Kentucky v. Whorton
Decision Date | 21 May 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-749,78-749 |
Parties | Commonwealth of KENTUCKY, Petitioner, v. Harold WHORTON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 444 U.S. 887, 100 S.Ct. 186.
In Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 1930, 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), this Court reversed a criminal conviction resulting from a trial in which the judge had refused to give a requested jury instruction on the presumption of innocence. Relying on its understanding of that decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court in the present case held that such an instruction is constitutionally required in all criminal trials, and that the failure of a trial judge to give it cannot be harmless error. Ky., 570 S.W.2d 627. We granted certiorari to consider whether the Kentucky Supreme Court correctly interpreted our holding in Taylor. 439 U.S. 1067, 99 S.Ct. 832, 59 L.Ed.2d 31.
The respondent was charged in three separate indictments with the commission of several armed robberies. At trial, numerous eyewitnesses identified the respondent as the perpetrator. Weapons, stolen money, and other incriminating evidence found in the respondent's automobile were introduced in evidence. The respondent did not take the stand in his own defense. The only evidence on his behalf was given by his wife and sister who offered alibi testimony concerning his whereabouts during the time of the commission of one of the robberies.
The respondent's counsel requested that the jury be instructed on the presumption of innocence.1 This instruction was refused by the trial judge. An instruction was given, however, to the effect that the jury could return a verdict of guilty only if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had committed the acts charged in the indictment with the requisite criminal intent.
The jury found the respondent guilty of 10 counts of first-degree robbery, 2 counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, and 2 counts of first-degree attempted robbery. The respondent was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling 230 years.
On appeal, the respondent argued that he had been denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by reason of the trial judge's refusal to give an instruction on the presumption of innocence. A divided Kentucky Supreme Court agreed, interpreting this Court's decision in Taylor "to mean that when an instruction on the presumption of innocence is asked for and denied there is a reversible error." Ky., 570 S.W.2d, at 633.2
Two justices filed separate dissenting opinions. In their view, the Taylor case should be understood as dealing with the factual situation there presented, and not as establishing a constitutional rule that failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence requires automatic reversal of a conviction. Since these justices concluded that the respondent received a fair trial, they would have affirmed the convictions.
While this Court in Taylor reversed a conviction resulting from a trial in which the judge had refused to give a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence, the Court did not there fashion a new rule of constitutional law requiring that such an instruction be given in every criminal case. Rather, the Court's opinion focused on the failure to give the instruction as it related to the overall fairness of the trial considered in its entirety.
The Court observed, for example, that the trial judge's instructions were "Spartan," 436 U.S., at 486, 98 S.Ct., at 1935, that the prosecutor improperly referred to the indictment and otherwise made remarks of dubious propriety, id., at 486-488, 98 S.Ct., at 1935-1936, and that the evidence against the defendant was weak. Id., at 488, 98 S.Ct., at 1936. "[T]he combination of the skeletal instructions, the possible harmful inferences from the references to the indictment, and the repeated suggestions that petitioner's status as a defendant tended to establish his guilt created a genuine danger that the jury would convict petitioner on the basis of those extraneous considerations, rather than on the evidence introduced at trial." Id., at 487-488, 98 S.Ct., at 1936.
It was under these circumstances that the Court held that the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence denied the defendant due process of law. Indeed, the Court's holding was expressly limited to the facts: "We hold that on the facts of this case the trial court's refusal to give petitioner's requested instruction on the presumption of innocence resulted in a violation of his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id., at 490, 98 S.Ct., at 1937 (emphasis added). This explicitly limited holding, and the Court's detailed discussion of the circumstances of the defendant's trial, belie any intention to create a rule that an instruction on the presumption of innocence is constitutionally required in every case.
In short, the failure to give a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence does not in and of itself violate the Constitution. Under Taylor, such a failure must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances—including all the instructions to the jury, the arguments of counsel, whether the weight of the evidence was overwhelming, and other relevant factors—to determine whether the defendant received a constitutionally fair trial.
The Kentucky Supreme Court thus erred in interpreting Taylor to hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment absolutely requires that an instruction on the presumption of innocence must be given in every criminal case. The court's inquiry should have been directed to a determination of whether the failure to give such an instruction in the present case deprived the respondent of due process of law in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Kentucky for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
No principle is more firmly established in our system of criminal justice than the presumption of innocence that is accorded to the defendant in every criminal trial. In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, the Court held that the Due Process Clause...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bey
...the jury, [and] the arguments of counsel.' " Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 145, 586 A.2d 85 (quoting Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 789, 99 S.Ct. 2088, 2089, 60 L.Ed.2d 640, 643 (1979)) (citation In this case, the court's inadequate instruction on mitigating factor c(5)(h) was partially ......
-
Hallmark v. Martin
...S.Ct. 1930, whether the right was violated depends on the totality of the circumstances of the case, see Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 789, 99 S.Ct. 2088, 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979). Counsel's failure to forecast an appellate court's finding of constitutional violation in the circumstances ......
-
State v. Hansbrough
...478 U.S. at 579–80, 106 S.Ct. 3101 (jury instruction containing an erroneous rebuttable presumption); Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 787, 99 S.Ct. 2088, 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979) (failure to instruct jury on presumption of innocence). In Neder, the defendant was indicted on numerous counts ......
-
People v. Aranda
...instruction on the presumption of innocence altogether "does not in and of itself violate the Constitution" (Kentucky v. Whorton (1979) 441 U.S. 786, 789, 99 S.Ct. 2088, 60 L.Ed.2d 640), and that the constitutional inquiry for failure to instruct on this principle is to evaluate the omissio......
-
CHAPTER 13 HARMLESS ERROR
...we have held susceptible to harmless-error analysis the failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence, Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 (1979), while finding it impossible to analyze in terms of harmless error the failure to instruct a jury on the reasonable-doubt standard, ......
-
Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1980-1981
...be used to infer guilt and should not prejudice the defendant in any way. The Court did not distinguish or refer to Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 (1979), which held that the failure to give a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence does not in and of itself violate the Uni......
-
A Better Orientation for Jury Instructions - Charles M. Cork, Iii
...procedure. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 483 (1978) (charge on presumption of innocence required). But see Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 788-90 (1979) (holding that charge was required in Taylor based on happenings at trial and not universally). 255. Wilson v. Muhanna, 213 Ga. App.......
-
A Comprehensive Consideration of the Structural-Error Doctrine.
...Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117-18 (1983). (49.) United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 510-12 (1983). (50.) Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 789-90 (1979) (per (51.) Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 372, 377-78 (1972); see also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52-53 (1970). (52.)......