Rivera v. Delaware
Decision Date | 12 October 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 75-6583,75-6583 |
Parties | Carmen Nereida RIVERA v. State of DELAWARE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree in Delaware Superior Court. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to strike the murder conviction but enter a judgment of conviction for manslaughter; the constitutionality of a Delaware statute that requires a criminal defendant raising an insanity defense to prove mental illness or defect by a preponderance of the evidence was sustained. The relevant sections of the Delaware Code provide:
"(a) When a defense declared by this Criminal Code or by another statute to be an affirmative defense is raised at trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence." Del.Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 401 (1975).
The Delaware Supreme Court held that Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952), required its conclusion, because Leland "has not been overruled by Mullaney (v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975)), . . . either expressly or implicitly." 351 A.2d 561, 562 (1976). Because I believe this case presents the substantial federal question whether Leland can be reconciled with our recent holdings in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), and Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, I would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
Mr. Justice STEVENS would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
In Mullaney, we considered a Maine rule that placed upon a criminal defendant charged with murder the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted in the heat of passion on sudden impulse in order to reduce the homicide to manslaughter. We concluded that this rule did not comport with the due process requirement, as defined in In re Winship, 397 U.S., at 361-364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. In reaching this conclusion, my Brother Powell's opinion for the Court pointed out that, in 1895, this Court considered and conclusively rejected the practice, accepted in several jurisdictions, of requiring the defendant to negate the presumption that he acted with malice aforethought. 421 U.S., at 694-696, 95 S.Ct. 1881. Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895), the decision referred to, held in the context of a federal murder prosecution that the prosecution must shoulder the burden of proving the accused was sane at the time of the commission of the crime. This was so, the Court concluded, because "the crime of murder necessarily involves the possession by the accused of such mental capacity as will render him criminally responsible for his acts." Id., at 485, 16 S.Ct. 353. It is thus clear, following Davis, at least in the context of federal criminal procedure, that the accused's sanity is an ingredient of mens rea, an element of the crime which the prosecution must prove beyond a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Drew
...205, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 2324, 53 L.Ed.2d 281, 289; see Rivera v. State (Del.1976) 351 A.2d 561, app. dism. Sub nom. Rivera v. Delaware (1976) 429 U.S. 877, 97 S.Ct. 226, 50 L.Ed.2d 160.) Drew further contends that requiring him to bear the burden of proving insanity violates the due process cla......
-
State v. Hinckley
...preponderance of the evidence. See Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977); Rivera v. Delaware, 429 U.S. 877, 97 S.Ct. 226, 50 L.Ed.2d 160 (1976); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952); cf. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 ......
-
Smith v. Commonwealth
...the defendant's. See, e.g., Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977) ; Rivera v. Delaware, 429 U.S. 877, 97 S.Ct. 226, 50 L.Ed.2d 160 (1976).In my view, in the wake of Mullaney, the "definition" of voluntary manslaughter from Read, Barrett, and Turner now im......
-
Com. v. Robinson
...which may, according to the Supreme Court, be fastened on the defendant without due process difficulties. See Rivera v. Delaware, 429 U.S. 877, 97 S.Ct. 226, 50 L.Ed.2d 160 (1978) (dismissing for want of a substantial Federal question a Delaware decision placing the burden as to insanity on......
-
Rejecting the clear and convincing evidence standard for proof of incompetence.
...that defendant in murder trial prove defense of extreme emotional disturbance). (18) Id. at 206. (19) 343 U.S. 790 (1952). (20) 429 U.S. 877 (21) Patterson, 432 U.S. at 206. (22) 441 U.S. 418 (1979). (23) Id. at 419-20. (24) Id. at 427. (25) Id. at 432. In suggesting that the state establis......