Mullaney v. Wilbur case brief

1. Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975) – seemed to support Winship.
1. murder D in Maine had “malice aforethought” as an element; judge told jury that “malice aforethought” would be “implied” (which SC read to mean presumed) from a “deliberate act [done] suddenly… or without a considerable provocation”
• Δ could defend by proving by preponderance of evidence that he “acted in the heat of passion, on sudden provocation” – would reduce crime to manslaughter.
2. issue: both a defense and an element of the crime involve the same fact – provocation.
• state has to prove absence provocation (BRD) to get malice aforethought; Δ could prove provocation (preponderance) in order to defend.
• Maine admitted that these are two opposite things – one negates the other
3. holding: this overlap between the defense and the defendant of the crime has the effect of violating Winship by shifting the burden of proof on provocation to the Δ, though this is an element of the crime.
• Winship expressly doesn’t allow state to do this – state must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
• at very least, this could confuse jury about who had what burden and dilute the state’s BRD duty; at worst, jury could believe Δ had the burden on provocation.
4. Mullaney seems to say that court will examine every element of the defense so that one doesn’t negative the other, creation of affirmative defenses aren’t a backdoor way of reducing the Winship obligation
• this broad reading, more defendant-protective: state can’t create an affirmative defense that overlaps the elements of the crime, even if it accepts the responsibility to prove every element of the crime.