Burdens of Proof

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

I. Burdens of proof

A. Burden of production in criminal cases

The burden of production, in a criminal case, is always on the State. Mullaney, 421 U.S. 684, 703 (1975). In State v. Snowden, 385 Md. 64 (2005), the Court of Appeals, stated: "The burden . . . is on the State . . . to prove its case through the production of witnesses and evidence that conforms to the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights." Id. at 96 (citing Lowery v. Collins, 988 F.2d 1364, 1369-70 (5th Cir. 1993)). The State must produce sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, meaning evidence sufficient to enable a finder of fact (judge or jury) to be persuaded, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the corpus delicti (the body of the crime) and the criminal agency of the defendant.

In determining whether the State has met its burden of production, the trial court must view the evidence produced most favorably to the State. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Wilson v. State, 319 Md. 530, 535-36 (1990); West v. State, 312 Md. 197, 207 (1988); Morgan v. State, 134 Md. App. 113, 126 (2000); see State v. Rusk, 289 Md. 230, 235-47 (1981) (with a conflict in testimony between the victim and the defendant, the jury could have convicted if it believed the victim's testimony of her fear).

The term "corpus delicti" is sometimes used to mean the sum of the elements of offense(s), i.e., the actus reus and mens rea of each offense. The term "corpus delicti" is sometimes used to mean both the sum of the elements and the criminal agency of the defendant. See Ballard v. State, 333 Md. 567, 577-78 (1994); Riggins v. State, 155 Md. App. 181, 213 (2004); Hricko v. State, 134 Md. App. 218, 262-69 (2000); Borza v. State, 25 Md. App. 391, 399 (1975). In this text, the term "corpus delicti" is used to mean the body of the crime, consisting or the actus reus and the mens rea. In this text, the criminal agency of the defendant is considered separately from the corpus delicti.

Thus, in every criminal case, the State must produce evidence of (1) the actus reus; (2) the mens rea; and (3) the criminal agency of the defendant. Thornton v. State, 397 Md. 704, 714 (2007); State v. Runkles, 326 Md. 384, 404 (1992). In Smith v. State, 20 Md. App. 577 (1974), the Court of Special Appeals held that: "Proof of the Defendant's criminal agency, although essential for conviction, is not part of the corpus delicti." Id. at 597 (citing McDowell v. State, 231 Md. 205 (1963); Bollinger v. State, 208 Md. 298 (1955); Davis v. State, 202 Md. 463 (1953); Hughes v. State, 6 Md. App. 389 (1969)).

B. Burden of persuasion in criminal cases

The burden of persuasion, in a criminal case, is always on the State. The State must persuade the finder of fact (judge or jury) of the merits of its case, beyond a reasonable doubt, as to every element of the offense(s) and the criminal agency of the defendant. Due Process prohibits a guilty verdict on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 703.

In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), the Supreme Court held: "[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." Id. at 364. Accord Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84, 91 (1981); see Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012); Bennett v. State, 283 Md. 619, 624-27 (1978); State v. Grady, 276 Md. 178, 181-82 (1975); Wilson v. State, 261 Md. 551, 563 (1971); Malcolm v. State, 232 Md. 222, 225 (1963); Johnson v. State, 227 Md. 159, 163 (1961); Furda v. State, 194 Md. App. 1, 65 (2010); Graham v. State, 151 Md. App. 466, 477 (2003); Kashansky v. State, 39 Md. App. 313, 319-20 (1978).

In Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 523-24 (1979), the Supreme Court held that jury instructions that could be interpreted as creating an irrebuttable presumption against the defendant are unconstitutional. See...