Thomas F. McInerney v. Louis Berman and Francis X. Bellotti, 621 F.2d 20, 1st Cir. (1980)

621 F.
2d 20
Thomas F. McINERNEY, Petitioner,

v.
Louis BERMAN and Francis X. Bellotti, Respondents.
No. 79-1371.
United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit.
Argued Dec. 6, 1979.
Decided May 8, 1980.
Stephen L. Saltonstall, Boston, Mass., with whom Norman S. Zalkind,

Boston, Mass., was on brief, for petitioner.
Roberta Thomas Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., with whom
Francis X. Bellotti, Atty. Gen., and Stephen R. Delinsky, Asst. Atty. Gen.,
Chief, Crim. Bureau, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for respondents.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit
Judges.
BOWNES, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition brought by

Thomas McInerney, a Massachusetts state prisoner serving a life sentence for
second degree murder.1 Petitioner claims that the trial judge's instructions to
the jury impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him, violating his right to
due process. We find no denial of due process and affirm the judgment of the
district court, 473 F.Supp. 187.
On the evening of August 15, 1974, petitioner and the victim, Cynthia
Hartford, previously strangers, met at a Boston bar, where they drank and spent
the evening together until closing time. At the victim's suggestion, they went to
her apartment, where they had more alcohol and attempted to have intercourse.
When the petitioner's impotency prevented consummation, the victim began to
laugh at him. He told her to stop and slapped her. She began to scream and he
put his hand over her mouth, grabbed a piece of twine lying nearby and
strangled her.
3
At the close of the state murder trial, the judge gave a lengthy and
comprehensive set of instructions to the jury. It was instructed generally on the
burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and in detail on the differing
elements of the various verdicts it could bring in.2 In the course of instructing
on the element of malice, essential for a murder conviction, the judge advised
the jurors of their right to draw a presumption or inference3 of malice from
proof of intentional use of a deadly weapon. Since the references to this
presumption are the crux of this petition, we reproduce in the margin the
portions of the charge containing such language.4 Mindful that the challenged
portions must be read in the context of the entire charge, Cupp v. Naughten,
414 U.S. 141, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973), we include the relevant
surrounding portions that petitioner does not challenge. The challenged portions
are italicized.
Petitioner argues that the instructions as to the presumption of malice operated

to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution, relieving it of proving an
essential element of the crime of murder. The Supreme Court recently
announced the following standard in testing the propriety of a jury charge:
"whether a defendant has been accorded his constitutional rights depends upon
the way in which a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction."
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 514, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 2454, 61 L.Ed.2d 39
(1979).
Our analysis of the charge requires us first to determine whether the

presumption is permissive or mandatory. County Court of Ulster County v.
Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). A permissive
presumption allows but does not require the jury to infer the presumed fact
upon proof by the prosecution of the "evidentiary" or predicate fact. Id. at 157,
99 S.Ct. at 2224. The use of a permissive presumption is constitutional if there
is a rational connection between the predicate and presumed facts. Id. at 157,
99 S.Ct. at 2224. See also Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 841, 93 S.Ct.
2357, 2360, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 467, 63
S.Ct. 1241, 1244, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943).
A mandatory presumption is of either the conclusive or burden-shifting variety.

An instruction from the judge that proof of one fact is irrebuttable proof of a
presumed fact is conclusive. A presumption that shifts the burden of proof to
the defendant can be recognized by language that instructs the jury that proof of
the predicate implies proof of the presumed fact unless disproved by the
defendant himself by a preponderance of the evidence. Sandstrom v. Montana,
supra, 442 U.S. at 516, 99 S.Ct. at 2455. A mandatory presumption which

shifts the burden of persuasion by requiring the defendant to establish
affirmatively the negative of an element of the offense is unconstitutional.
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975).
However, a permissive presumption which allows but does not require the jury
to find that the prosecution has met its burden as to the inferred fact on proof of
the predicate fact at the most shifts the burden of production to the defendant,
which is not per se a violation of due process. Id. at 702-3 n.31, 95 S.Ct. at
1891 n.31. The presumption must then meet the rational-connection test in
order to survive constitutional scrutiny. See Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S.
837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380; Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 63
S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519.
7
The language used in the charge gave the jury the right to make inferences, but
imposed no obligation on it to do so. The jury was advised that it might infer
malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon, but that all of the
circumstances attending the killing ought to be considered. It was not instructed
that a presumption of malice arose as a matter of law from the use of a deadly
weapon, nor was it told that the defendant had the burden of rebutting such
presumption.
Following the Sandstrom reasonable-juror's-interpretation test, however, it is

necessary to determine whether this permissive presumption could have
reasonably been interpreted by the jury as shifting the burden of proof to the
defendant to prove his lack of malice. In making this determination, we must
still be guided by the holding in Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 94 S.Ct. 396,
38 L.Ed.2d 368, which requires us to look at the charge as a whole. See United
States v. Thomann, 609 F.2d 560, 565 (1st Cir. 1979). Reading Sandstrom and
Cupp together, the question becomes whether a reasonable juror could have
interpreted the instruction on the inference of malice in an impermissible way
regardless of the surrounding instructions and the charge read in its entirety. A
reasonable juror can be expected to listen to all he/she is told by the judge and
it will be presumed that he/she will not isolate a particular portion of the charge
and ascribe to it more importance than the rest. This is especially so where, as
here, the judge explicitly cautioned the jury not to be influenced by how much
or how little time he devoted in his charge to any particular instruction.
The only portion of the charge that might suggest a persuasion-shifting

presumption is the following language:
10
When
a killing is caused by the intentional use of a deadly weapon, malice may be
inferred, unless by the circumstances the jury considers that it has been disproved. . .
. An intentional killing does carry with it the presumption of malice aforethought but
the circumstances which precede and accompany the intentional killing may be such
as to rebut the presumption of malice and reduce the crime, therefore, to
manslaughter.
11
At the outset of this analysis, we note that, like the inference of knowledge
from unexplained possession of stolen goods in Barnes v. United States, supra,
"we deal with a traditional common-law inference deeply rooted in our law."
412 U.S. at 843, 93 S.Ct. at 2362. "It has long been recognized in this
Commonwealth that malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a
deadly weapon." Commonwealth v. Gagne, 367 Mass. 519, 326 N.E.2d 907,
909 (1975) (citations omitted).
12
The offending language in Sandstrom began, "the law presumes." Nowhere in

the challenged part of the instruction in this case does there appear similar
language. Rather, the judge used the words "you may make an inference,"
"malice could be inferred" (emphasis added). Even where the judge's language
is ambiguous as to how a presumption operates, he couched it in terms of the
jury's duty to look at all the circumstances surrounding the killing which might
rebut any presumption of malice. See note 4, supra. We think that reasonable
jurors, having been instructed repeatedly that the Commonwealth must prove
its case by proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt,
would have properly understood the instructions on presumptions to mean that
they could use inferences from the facts surrounding the killing that common
sense and experience made appropriate in deciding whether the prosecution had
proved its case of murder.
13
The jury was, in effect, instructed that it was to do what every jury has the right
and sworn duty to do find facts based on proof and on reasonable inferences
from proven facts. See Gagne v. Meachum, 602 F.2d 471, 473-4 (1st Cir.
1979). The reasonable juror could not have understood "may" to mean "shall,"
ignored the rest of the cautionary instructions in the charge and focused solely
on a small portion of it in which the presumption of malice from intentional use
of a deadly weapon was discussed. This is not a case where the jury was
instructed that an intentional killing is per se done with malice, which has been
held to be reversible error. United States v. Wharton, 433 F.2d 451 (D.C. Cir.
1970). On the contrary, the judge, here, reminded the jury, with each mention
of the permissible inference, that it was to consider the circumstances preceding
and attending the killing in determining whether or not it was done with malice.
We agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that
(a) judge does not violate constitutional principles of due process by advising the
14
jury that, if they think it reasonable, they may infer the existence of malice from the
fact, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant shot the victim, stabbed
him, or otherwise harmed him with a deadly weapon.
15
Gagne v. Commonwealth, --- Mass. ---, 377 N.E.2d 919, 923 (1978).
16
Although it might have been preferable for the judge to have reiterated during
his inference instruction that the burden of proof as to the circumstances
showing malice remained on the prosecution, we read the charge as a whole to
have advised the jury amply to that effect. The instruction to consider all the
facts rather than isolate the single predicate fact of use of a deadly weapon
supports the reasonable interpretation of the presumption as permissive. County
Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. at 163, 99 S.Ct. at 2227; Nesson,
Reasonable Doubt and Permissive Inferences, 92 Harv.L.Rev. 1187, 1223
(1979).
17
We find it instructive, in looking at the charge as a whole, to contrast the

language on the presumption of malice with another section of the charge. The
judge gave the following instruction on the legal effect of evidence of
intoxication: "I charge you as law that the use of intoxicating liquor . . . in and
of itself is no defense to a charge of murder." "Drunkenness cannot reduce the
crime to manslaughter" (emphasis added). Having been told this, it is difficult
to conclude that reasonable jurors could have interpreted entirely different
phraseology on the inference of malice as having the same conclusive effect.
18
Coming to the inference itself, we have no difficulty in finding a rational

connection between the proven fact of an intentional killing with a deadly
weapon and the presumption of malice. The Commonwealth produced a
number of witnesses who gave the same account of the killing, as admitted to
them by the defendant. The defendant produced no evidence and did not testify.
Based on the evidence, the jury was warranted in finding that the following
facts had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant and the victim
consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and returned to her apartment
intending to have sexual relations. Once there, the drinking continued and the
two attempted to have intercourse. When she realized that the defendant was
impotent, the victim began to laugh at him, claiming she had wasted her
evening. This derision led the defendant to slap or hit her, which caused her to
scream. It was at that point that the defendant reached for a piece of twine lying
nearby and put it around her neck, squeezing until he saw blood coming from
her mouth. Believing she was dead, he picked up some beer cans and her purse
and left, discarding these articles near his apartment.
19
Malicious killing, or murder, was defined for the jury as occurring where
"death flows from a purposeful, selfish, wrongful motive as distinguished from
the frailty of human nature." Since it is a subjective state of mind, malice would
be nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by other than
circumstantial evidence and the use of logical inferences that comport with
human experience. "(R)educed to its lowest terms, 'malice' in murder, means
knowledge of such circumstances that according to common experience there is
a plain and strong likelihood that death will follow the contemplated act,
coupled perhaps with an implied negation of any excuse or justification."
Commonwealth v. Chance, 174 Mass. 245, 252, 54 N.E. 551, 554, quoted in
Commonwealth v. Gricus, 317 Mass. 403, 410, 58 N.E.2d 241, 245 (1944). The
use of a deadly weapon, and a twine garrotte can be as deadly as a gun or knife,
rationally supports the conclusion that the defendant's motive was purposeful,
selfish and wrongful, without any apparent justification or mitigation. There
was no evidence of any mitigating circumstances.5
20
We are satisfied that on the facts of the present case, the judge's charge
effectively instructed the jury of a reasonable inference it was permitted, but not
required, to make and that the charge fully comported with due process.6
21
Affirmed.
Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder but, on appeal to the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the conviction was vacated and the
entry of a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree was ordered because
it was found there was no deliberate premeditation. Commonwealth v.
McInerney, 373 Mass. 136, 365 N.E.2d 815 (1977)
He methodically explained to the jury the distinctions between first and second
degree murder and between murder and manslaughter
Although technically the terms "presumption" and "inference" differ in

meaning, the judge appeared to use them interchangeably. The significant
distinction is between presumptions or inferences which are mandatory and
those which are permissive
"There are inferences which you may draw. You may, from having found one
or more facts, decide that, 'Since this fact or these facts exist, then logically I
am also compelled to find another fact.' So long as your inference is logical and
reasonable, you may make an inference and you may use that inference as the
basis for a finding of fact
"An intentional killing may be either murder or manslaughter. So I reiterate, in

order to determine whether an unlawful killing is murder or manslaughter, you
have to consider the circumstances which precede the killing, you have to
consider the circumstances that attend the killing, you must look at the act of
the killer to determine the presence or the absence of malice. . . .
"Now, malice aforethought may be implied from such an intent unless the
circumstances are such as to reduce the crime to manslaughter. . . .
"Where an unlawful killing is intentional or purposeful, there may be
circumstances which will rebut the presumption of malice and reduce the
character of that unlawful killing from murder to manslaughter, and I will speak
of those circumstances again which rebut the presumption of malice but first I
think we should consider the expression 'malice aforethought,' since malice is
an essential ingredient of the crime of murder.
"When a killing is shown to have been committed without justification and as a
result of a deliberate act on the part of a defendant, then it is proved sufficiently
to have been done with malice aforethought. But whether a killing is actually
committed with malice aforethought is determined from the nature and the
quality of the act which attends the killing, because that is the only way to
decide what reveals the state of the heart and the mind of the person who does
the killing.
"If the circumstances attending a killing disclose that the death flows from a
purposeful, selfish, wrongful motive as distinguished from the frailty of human
nature, then there is malice aforethought. When a killing is caused by the
intentional use of a deadly weapon, malice may be inferred, unless by the
circumstances the jury considers that it has been disproved.
"Now, the fact that a killing is accomplished intentionally does not necessarily
make it murder. An intentional killing does carry with it the presumption of
malice aforethought but the circumstances which precede and accompany the
intentional killing may be such as to rebut the presumption of malice and
reduce the crime, therefore, to manslaughter " (emphasis added.)
5
The evidence did show that the victim subjected the defendant to derision, but "
(i)nsults and arguing cannot provide provocation . . . ." Commonwealth v.
Greene, 372 Mass. 517, 362 N.E.2d 910, 913 (1977)
We see no merit in petitioner's claim that other portions of the charge

contributed to an overall violation of due process

Thomas F. McInerney v. Louis Berman and Francis X. Bellotti, 621 F.2d 20, 1st Cir. (1980)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thomas F. McInerney v. Louis Berman and Francis X. Bellotti, 621 F.2d 20, 1st Cir. (1980)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thomas F. McInerney v. Louis Berman and Francis X. Bellotti, 621 F.2d 20, 1st Cir. (1980)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

621 F.

Thomas F. McINERNEY, Petitioner,

United States Court of Appeals,

Stephen L. Saltonstall, Boston, Mass., with whom Norman S. Zalkind,

This is an appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition brought by

Petitioner argues that the instructions as to the presumption of malice operated

Our analysis of the charge requires us first to determine whether the

A mandatory presumption is of either the conclusive or burden-shifting variety.

supra, 442 U.S. at 516, 99 S.Ct. at 2455. A mandatory presumption which

Following the Sandstrom reasonable-juror's-interpretation test, however, it is

The only portion of the charge that might suggest a persuasion-shifting

The offending language in Sandstrom began, "the law presumes." Nowhere in

We find it instructive, in looking at the charge as a whole, to contrast the

Coming to the inference itself, we have no difficulty in finding a rational

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder but, on appeal to the

Although technically the terms "presumption" and "inference" differ in

"An intentional killing may be either murder or manslaughter. So I reiterate, in

We see no merit in petitioner's claim that other portions of the charge

You might also like