Trimble v. Stynchcombe, 73-1753 Summary Calendar.
Decision Date | 31 July 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 73-1753 Summary Calendar.,73-1753 Summary Calendar. |
Citation | 481 F.2d 1175 |
Parties | Larry TRIMBLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy STYNCHCOMBE, Sheriff, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Morris H. Rosenberg, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Trimble was convicted of rape in the Georgia State Court. Having exhausted his state remedies by appealing his conviction to the Georgia Supreme Court, Trimble v. State, 1972, 229 Ga. 399, 191 S.E.2d 857, he filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the district court, alleging that his conviction and sentence was unconstitutionally invalid because the trial judge placed the burden of proving alibi on Trimble when instructing the jury. The district court, while acknowledging that the instruction was error, nevertheless held that it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. We reverse.
We agree with the district court that the instructions given in Bassett v. Smith, 5 Cir.1972, 464 F.2d 347, cert. denied, 410 U.S. 991, 93 S.Ct. 1509, 36 L.Ed.2d 190 (1973) and in Smith v. Smith, 5 Cir.1971, 454 F.2d 572, cert. denied, 1972, 409 U.S. 885, 93 S.Ct. 99, 34 L.Ed.2d 141, were the same as the instruction given in this case and that it erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the accused in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
We disagree, however, with the district court's view that the instruction given was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The harmless error principle is inapplicable where, as here, the alibi instruction is wholly inconsistent with the reasonable doubt instruction. Perez v. United States, 5 Cir.1961, 297 F.2d 12. Furthermore, Stump v. Bennett, 8 Cir.1968, 398 F.2d 111, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1001, 89 S.Ct. 483, 21 L.Ed.2d 466.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to grant the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, unless the State of Georgia shall,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fulton v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
...("strong evidence of guilt" may support finding that burden-shifting instruction was not prejudicial); Trimble v. Stynchcombe, 481 F.2d 1175, 1176 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam) (harmless error principle inapplicable where alibi instruction is wholly inconsistent with the reasonable doubt inst......
-
Berrier v. Egeler
...Smith, 454 F.2d 572 (5th Cir. 1971), Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 885, 93 S.Ct. 99, 34 L.Ed.2d 141 (1972) (alibi defense); Trimble v. Stynchcombe, 481 F.2d 1175 (5th Cir. 1973) (alibi defense); Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 93 S.Ct. 354, 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972) (exculpatory accomplice testim......
-
F.T.C. v. Think Achievement Corp.
... ... Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff, the Federal Trade ... ...
-
Rogers v. Redman
...persuasion on this issue to him would be fundamentally inconsistent with the rationale of In re Winship. See, e. g., Trimble v. Stynchcombe, 481 F.2d 1175 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Alston, 551 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Stump v. Bennett, 398 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1960) (en banc), cert.......