Citation network
Yates Vs. Evatt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 28, 1991
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. 391 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Yates v. EvattSearch
-
U.S. 391 (1991) Yates v. EvattSearch
-
was an unconstitutional burden-shifting instruction under, inter alia, this Court's decisions in Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
U. S. 510 , and Francs v. FranklinSearch
-
The State Supreme Court failed to apply the proper harmless error standard, as stated in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in the first instance, because this case has already been remanded twice, once for such an analysis. See Rose v. ClarkSearch
-
State v. JohnsonSearch
-
Page 500 U. S. 398 The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the conviction, and we denied certiorari. State v. YatesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
was an unconstitutional burden-shifting instruction both under state precedent, State v. ElmoreSearch
-
S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d 781 (1983), and under our decision in Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
petition was pending, we delivered another opinion on unconstitutional burden-shifting jury instructions, Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Francis. Yates v. AikenSearch
-
Supreme Court found the jury instruction unconstitutional, but denied relief on the ground that its decision in State v. ElmoreSearch
-
was not to be applied retroactively. Petitioner again sought review here, and again we granted certiorari, Yates v. AikenSearch
-
that the State Supreme Court had not complied with the mandate to reconsider its earlier decision in light of Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
supra. Yates v. AikenSearch
-
and held that Francis was merely an application of the principle settled by our prior decision in Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
the judgment of the State Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion. Yates v. AikenSearch
-
certiorari to review this case a third time. 498 U.S. 809 (1990). II A This Court held in Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). We applied this principle in Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
Court of South Carolina correctly treated them as subject to further review for harmless error, consistently with Rose v. ClarkSearch
-
which we held that the taint of an unconstitutional burden-shifting jury instruction may be harmless, citing Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
quoting Fahy v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Delaware v. VanSearch
-
of appellate practice, that jurors are reasonable and generally follow the instructions they are given. See Richardson v. MarshSearch
-
which state that the harmlessness of an error is to be judged after a review of the entire record. See, e.g., Delaware v. VanSearch
-
not apply the test that Chapman formulated. Instead, the court employed language taken out of context from Rose v. ClarkSearch
-
the authority to make our own assessment of the harmlessness of a constitutional error in the first instance. See Rose v. ClarkSearch
-
State v. YatesSearch
-
clause insufficient to correct the error of presuming malice from the use of a deadly weapon. See Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
Ulster County Court v. AllenSearch
-
allows an inference to be drawn, and is constitutional so long as the inference would not be irrational. See Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
In his opinion concurring in the judgment in Carella v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 263 , 491 U. S. 267 (1989), JUSTICE SCALIA noted that the majority opinion in Rose v. ClarkSearch
-
indeed, to do so would be a waste of the jury's time and contrary to its instructions. See Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
The Court's opinion in Rose v. ClarkSearch
-
U.S. at 478 U. S. 583 , quotes from the dissent in Connecticut v. JohnsonSearch
-
of killing the proprietor and anyone else inside, so as to leave no witnesses. Id. at 85-86. See also State v. YatesSearch
-
App.19) (emphasis added). If we take the assumption that juries follow their instructions seriously, Richardson v. MarshSearch
-
the ultimate factual determination, it cannot assume that it did so using the appropriate burden of proof. See Carella v. CaliforniaSearch
-
a reasonable doubt. Such a hypothetical inquiry is inconsistent with the harmless error standard announced in Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ante at 500 U. S. 404 (emphasis added). See also Bollenbach v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Yates v. EvattSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial