instruction as a burden-shifting presumption (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

instruction as a burden-shifting presumption in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 1980–1982 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. green
scotus · 1978
2 sentences

1982Ed. 2d 508 (1975), or as a conclusive presumption like those invalidated in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 , 98 S. Ct. 2864 , 57 L.

1982Ed. 2d 508 (1975), or as a conclusive presumption like those invalidated in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 , 98 S. Ct. 2864 , 57 L.

61980–1982
Mullaney v. Wilbur green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

1982The defendant admitted the attempted robbery and the fact that he had fired at the police officer, but claimed he had no intention to kill. *263 The court’s instructions on intent included the statement “[e]very person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act.” In Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that a jury instruction that “ ‘[t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts’ ” violated the defendant’s due process rights because a reasonable jury could have interpreted the instruction as a burden-shiftin

1982The defendant admitted the attempted robbery and the fact that he had fired at the police officer, but claimed he had no intention to kill. *263 The court’s instructions on intent included the statement “[e]very person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act.” In Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that a jury instruction that “ ‘[t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts’ ” violated the defendant’s due process rights because a reasonable jury could have interpreted the instruction as a burden-shiftin

61980–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (5)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check