CHRISTOPHER A. BURGER, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH KEMP, WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1986-07-23
No. 81-7419
Before VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and ALLGOOD , Senior District Judge.
796 F.2d 1313 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Other
PER CURIAM:

(Opinion March 13, 1986, 11 Cir., 785 F. 2d 890).

PER CURIAM:

The panel opinion of March 13, 1986 should not be interpreted as requiring a defendant to place intent explicitly in issue before he can prevail on a challenge to burden shifting instructions on criminal intent. The panel majority simply noted that evidence of intent is more likely to be overwhelming where the defendant has not attempted to counter the state’s evidence on criminal intent.

With the foregoing clarification of the panel opinion the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, Fed.R.App.P. 35, 11th Cir. Rule 26, the suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

Judge JOHNSON adheres to the viev/s previously expressed in his dissent from the panel opinion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (U.S. 1987)
    …at the Court of Appeals should be affirmed to the extent it held that any impermissible effect of the jury instruction on malice given at the guilt/innoeence phase of trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See 785 F. 2d 890 (CA11), clarified, 796 F. 2d 1313 (1986). I also agree with the Court’s observation, ante, at 779, n. 1, that petitioner has not advanced here the question of the constitutionality of executing a person for a murder committed while he was a minor, and thus there is no need to addres…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw