Sandstrom V. Montana

140 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Bright v. Williams
  817 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding the jury instruction on intent was exhausted and that the erroneous instruction was not harmless error, thus affirming the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.
• Burton v. Foltz
  810 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 4×
  A jury instruction that unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof on intent can be harmless error if the evidence of intent is overwhelming and the predicate facts conclusively establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Beck v. Norris
  801 F.2d 242· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of testimony from witnesses who had undergone hypnosis did not deprive the petitioner of a fair trial, and any error in a jury instruction regarding malice was harmless.
• Myrick v. Herb Maschner & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Kan.
  799 F.2d 642· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a constitutionally deficient jury instruction regarding intent was harmless error because the evidence overwhelmingly established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the instruction did not affect the verdict. The court also held that the pet
• Shepard v. Foltz
  771 F.2d 962· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to meet the 'cause and prejudice' standard required for federal review of claims procedurally defaulted in state court.
• Charles v. Foltz
  741 F.2d 834· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the use of prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes did not violate due process, and any instructional error regarding malice was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Sterling Johnson
  735 F.2d 373· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions on intent were not erroneous and the statute prohibiting misuse of a diplomatic passport was not unconstitutionally vague.
• Lannon v. Hogan
  719 F.2d 518· 1st Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 4×
• Phillips v. Rose
  690 F.2d 79· 6th Cir.· 1982-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that jury instructions creating a presumption of malice that shifted the burden of persuasion to the defendant violated due process and were not harmless error.
• Ramirez v. Jones
  683 F.2d 712· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 4×
  A petitioner's failure to object at trial does not preclude federal habeas review if the state appellate court considered the merits, but the failure to object remains a factor in the federal court's analysis.
• Moore v. State
  78 So. 3d 118· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-01-30 ·cited 3×
  Florida appellate court affirmed a juvenile's conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter despite the defendant's argument that the offense became non-cognizable after State v. Montgomery eliminated the intent-to-kill requirement for manslaughter by act, but certified a quest
• Cain v. Redman
  947 F.2d 817· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner could not retroactively apply the Supreme Court's decision in Sandstrom v. Montana to his conviction because it announced a new rule of law that does not fall within the Teague v. Lane exceptions, and any error in the jury instructions was harml
• Hernandez v. Rayl
  944 F.2d 794· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unconstitutional jury instruction shifting the burden of proving intent cannot be considered harmless error when the evidence does not compel a guilty verdict independently of the presumption.
• Arce v. Smith
  889 F.2d 1271· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims by failing to raise them on direct appeal or in a timely manner, and he failed to show cause to excuse the default, thus precluding review of the merits.
• Thurman Dickey v. Lewis
  859 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a jury instruction presuming intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon, while unconstitutional, constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of intent. The court also affirmed that no state procedural bar precluded federal review.
• Buford v. Dugger
  841 F.2d 1057· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim regarding jury instructions was procedurally barred because it was not raised on direct appeal, and even if considered on the merits, it would fail.
• United States v. Malone
  837 F.2d 670· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that even if the jury instructions regarding specific intent were erroneous, the error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• Alexander v. Foltz
  838 F.2d 140· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding the presumption of intent and implied malice were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the petitioner to a new trial.
• Al Mancuso v. Scully
  818 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal habeas petition containing unexhausted claims must be dismissed entirely, even if other claims have been previously adjudicated.
• United States v. Simpson
  950 F.2d 1519· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-10
  The court held that an isolated viewing of a co-defendant in handcuffs, after a verdict, does not warrant a new trial without a showing of actual prejudice, and that the jury instructions on fraud, intent, and motive were proper.
• Coleman v. Jones
  909 F.2d 447· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-17
  A jury instruction that presumes malice from the use of a deadly weapon, while erroneous, was harmless because the defendant was convicted of a capital offense requiring intentional killing, not a lesser offense requiring malice.
• Polsky v. Patton
  890 F.2d 647· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-30
  The court held that the omission of the word 'malice' from jury instructions on murder did not violate due process, as the instructions conveyed the essential elements of the crime and any errors were harmless or in the defendant's favor.
• Senk v. Zimmerman
  886 F.2d 611· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-29
  Counsel's failure to challenge a jury instruction on intent was not ineffective assistance because the relevant constitutional law had not yet been clearly established at the time of trial.
• Weyman H. House, Jr. v. Lavoie
  843 F.2d 474· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-27
  The court held that even if the jury instruction unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of intent and malice.
• Al Mancuso v. Scully
  824 F.2d 154· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-27
  The court held that recent Supreme Court decisions did not alter the prior ruling that the jury instructions in Mancuso's felony murder trial were harmless error and did not violate Sandstrom v. Montana.
• Broesch v. Gagnon
  817 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-20
  The court held that the jury instruction created a permissive inference, not a mandatory presumption, and was therefore not constitutionally offensive.
• Fratarcangelo v. Smith
  792 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-02
  The court held that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, did not create an unconstitutional presumption of intent, and any error in a separate instruction was harmless.
• United States v. Johnson
  756 F.2d 453· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-06
  The court held that a jury instruction referring to a reasonable inference of intent, rather than a presumption, did not violate Sandstrom, and that singling out a defendant's testimony regarding their interest in the outcome was not reversible error.
• Roberts v. Marshall
  736 F.2d 1126· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-22
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding 'purposely' for murder and 'knowingly' for drug possession did not violate due process, and that claims not objected to at trial were procedurally barred.
• Hill v. Zimmerman
  709 F.2d 232· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-09
  The court held that the petitioner had not fairly presented his claim regarding the malice jury instruction to the state courts, thus requiring dismissal of the habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
• Jordan v. Hammock
  682 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-24
  The court held that the jury charge's presumption of intent was not a federal constitutional error because the defendant's future actions were not natural consequences of his present acts.