Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

EARL DAUGHTERY, ALSO KNOWN AS EARL DAUGHTRY v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Murder — Instructions — Burden of Proof.

Under authority of companion case instruction sustained.

Per Curiam.

This appeal, like Hodge v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 338, 228 S.E.2d 692, (this day decided), challenges the defendant's second degree murder conviction under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as explicated in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). The challenged instruction here, Instruction D, was the equivalent of Instruction 17 in Hodge.

Since the law of Virginia and this instruction only required the defendant to produce some evidence contesting the presumed malice, and the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt remained with the Commonwealth, we find this claim to be without merit for the reasons set forth in Hodge. Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DAUGHTERY v. COMMONWEALTH
(Oct 8, 1976)