Citation network
Mullaney Vs. Wilbur
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 09, 1975
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 684 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
U.S. 684 (1975) Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
are not distinct crimes but, rather, different degrees of the single generic offense of felonious homicide. State v. WilburSearch
-
provocation. Respondent next successfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. Wilbur v. RobbinsSearch
-
beyond a reasonable doubt. Following this decision, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of State v. LaffertySearch
-
Winters v. NewSearch
-
In view of this presumption, the early English authorities, relying on the case of The King v. OnebySearch
-
that, absent proof to the contrary, a homicide was presumed not to have occurred in the heat of passion. See State v. RollinsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In a landmark case, Commonwealth v. YorkSearch
-
this Court explicitly considered and unanimously rejected the general approach articulated in York. Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. LaffertySearch
-
act either be Page 421 U. S. 699 intentional or the result of criminally reckless conduct. See State v. LaffertySearch
-
St. Louis S.W. R. Co. v. ArkansasSearch
-
likelihood of an erroneous murder conviction. Such a result directly contravenes the principle articulated in Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
Winship, 397 U.S. at 397 U. S. 370 -372 (Harlan, J., concurring). C It has been suggested, State v. WilburSearch
-
State v. RollinsSearch
-
of the defendant, this does not, as the Court has long recognized, justify shifting the burden to him. See Tot v. UnitedSearch
-
Leary v. UnitedSearch
-
Maine itself requires the prosecution to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. MillettSearch
-
express malice appears to have been wholly unnecessary, as the Maine Supreme Judicial Court subsequently held. State v. LaffertySearch
-
State v. WilburSearch
-
retroactively. We subsequently decided, however, that Winship should be given complete retroactive effect. Ivan v. CitySearch
-
Respondent relies on Bouie v. CitySearch
-
retroactive application of the new interpretation was itself a denial of due process. See also Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. HillSearch
-
in Maine, the burden of proving heat of passion has rested on the defendant for more than a century. See, e.g., State v. KnightSearch
-
since malice would be implied from the unlawful homicide. In considering these instructions as a whole, see Cupp v. NaughtenSearch
-
U. S. 120 , 326 U. S. 129 (1945). See Ward v. LoveSearch
-
Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. IndianaSearch
-
it to be novel, does not frustrate consideration of the due process issue, as the Maine court itself recognized, State v. WilburSearch
-
The Remains of Federalism After Wilbur v. MullaneySearch
-
Much of this history was set out in the Court's opinion in McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
State v. KnightSearch
-
production burden or the persuasion burden on the issue of heat of passion. See, e.g., cases discussed in People v. MorrinSearch
-
Commonwealth v. HawkinsSearch
-
that he acted in the heat of passion. See, e.g., State v. WillisSearch
-
In Leland v. OregonSearch
-
State v. CuevasSearch
-
requires the prosecution to negate heat of passion on sudden provocation by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Mancini v. DirectorSearch
-
Woolmington v. DirectorSearch
-
Relying on Williams v. NewSearch
-
York, 337 U. S. 241 (1949), and McGautha v. CaliforniaSearch
-
discretion of the sentencing body, and therefore not subject to rigorous due process demands. But cf. United States v. TuckerSearch
-
the defendant to disprove the elements of aggravation -- e.g., intent to kill or intent to rob. But see State v. FerrisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial