Case Briefing Criminal Justice

Facts

Ð'* In June 1966 Jury found respondent Stillman E. Willbur Jr. Guilty of murder. Fatally assaulted Claude Hebert in the Latters hotel room. He attacked Herbert in a frenzy provoked by Herbert's homosexual advance. The prosecutor states that the homicide was manslaughter rather than murder since it occurred in the "heat of the passion" provoked by the homosexual assault.

Issue

Ð'* The Issue is whether the Maine rule requiring the defendant to prove that he acted in the heat of passion on sudden provocation accords with due process?

Holding

Ð'* We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of the heat of passion on sudden provocation when the issue is properly presented in a homicide case.

Judgment

Ð'* Judgment was affirmed due to the fact that the defendant failed to prove by a fair preponderance of evidence that he acted in the heat of passion.

Reasoning

Ð'* The Court noted in Leland that the issue of insanity as a defense to a criminal charge was considered by the jury only after it had found that all elements of the offense, including the mens rea if any required by state law, had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although as the state court's instructions in Leland recognized, evidence relevant to insanity as defined by state law may also be relevant to whether the required mens rea was present, the existence or nonexistence of legal insanity bears no necessary relationship to the existence of the required mental elements of the crime. For this reason, Oregon's placement of the burden of proof on insanity on Leland, unlike Maine's redefinition of homicide in the instant