Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1977

Patterson v. New York

432 U.S. 197 | 97 S. Ct. 2319 | 53 L. Ed. 2d 281 | 1977 U.S. LEXIS 120

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a State may require a defendant to prove a mitigating affirmative defense, so long as the State still proves every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background

After becoming estranged from his wife, Gordon Patterson borrowed a rifle, went to his father-in-law’s home, saw his wife partially undressed with John Northrup, and shot Northrup twice in the head. Patterson confessed to the killing but argued at trial that the shooting was accidental and, alternatively, that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.

New York defined second-degree murder as intentionally causing another person’s death. Its statute also made extreme emotional disturbance, for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, an affirmative defense. If the defendant proved that defense by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense was reduced from murder to manslaughter. The jury was instructed that the prosecution had to prove intent and all elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but that Patterson bore the burden of proving extreme emotional disturbance. The jury convicted him of murder.

The New York Appellate Division affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals rejected Patterson’s argument that the statute violated due process under Mullaney v. Wilbur. The Court of Appeals concluded that extreme emotional disturbance was not an element of New York murder that the State had to disprove. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids New York from requiring a murder defendant to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence.

Holding

No. Due process permits New York to place that burden of persuasion on the defendant because extreme emotional disturbance does not negate an element of the murder offense as New York defined it.

Reasoning

Under In re Winship, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the charged crime. New York’s murder statute required proof that the defendant intended to cause death, caused a death, and that his conduct caused that result. The jury was properly told that the State bore that burden throughout the trial, and its verdict established that the State proved those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Extreme emotional disturbance was a separate mitigating affirmative defense, not a fact that disproved intent, causation, or death. A defendant who intentionally kills may be less culpable because of emotional disturbance, but that circumstance does not negate the facts New York selected as the elements of murder. New York could therefore require Patterson to establish the mitigating circumstance by a preponderance before reducing the offense to manslaughter.

The Court relied on Leland v. Oregon and Rivera v. Delaware, which allowed States to require defendants to prove insanity defenses after the State had proved all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. New York’s emotional-disturbance defense similarly allowed a defendant to show a mental infirmity short of insanity that mitigated culpability, while leaving the State’s proof of murder intact.

History also supported the allocation. At common law, defendants generally bore the burden of proving circumstances of justification, excuse, or mitigation, including heat of passion on sudden provocation. Although many jurisdictions had since assigned prosecutors the burden to disprove such defenses, that policy trend did not make the contrary New York rule unconstitutional.

The Court emphasized that States retain substantial authority to define crimes and allocate proof burdens for affirmative defenses. A State may choose to recognize mitigating defenses without being constitutionally required to disprove each one beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly where requiring disproof could make the defense impracticable or substantially restrict the State’s ability to punish intentional killings as murder.

That flexibility was not unlimited. A legislature may not simply declare a person guilty, presume all essential facts of guilt from an indictment or identity, or evade Winship by shifting to the defendant the burden to disprove a fact that is actually an element of the offense. But New York had not done so here because it required the State to prove every statutory element of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue #2

Whether Mullaney v. Wilbur required New York to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of extreme emotional disturbance once Patterson raised the issue.

Holding

No. Mullaney barred a State from presuming or shifting to the defendant the burden on a fact that was an ingredient of the offense, but it did not require the prosecution to disprove every affirmative defense affecting culpability or punishment.

Reasoning

Mullaney involved Maine’s murder law, under which malice—understood as the absence of heat of passion on sudden provocation—was part of the definition of murder. Maine presumed that absence of provocation from an intentional and unlawful killing, and required the defendant to prove heat of passion by a preponderance. That arrangement impermissibly shifted the burden on an essential ingredient of murder.

New York’s statute differed because it did not presume any additional fact after proof of an intentional killing. Once the State proved intent, death, and causation beyond a reasonable doubt, the statutory elements of murder were complete. Extreme emotional disturbance was instead a distinct affirmative defense that could mitigate the already established crime.

The Court rejected the broader reading of Mullaney under which the prosecution would have to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact that affects blameworthiness, degree of offense, or punishment. Such a rule would sharply limit States’ ability to create and structure affirmative defenses, despite the longstanding acceptance of requiring defendants to prove some defenses.

Dissents

Justice Powell

Reasoning

Justice Powell, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that New York’s extreme-emotional-disturbance defense was the modern equivalent of the heat-of-passion defense at issue in Mullaney. Both defenses distinguish murder from manslaughter, and both make the defendant’s punishment and the stigma of conviction turn on whether a mitigating emotional condition existed. In practical operation, New York imposed the same unconstitutional burden that Maine had imposed.

The dissent faulted the majority for treating statutory wording as controlling. Under the majority’s approach, a legislature could shift the burden of persuasion on an important issue merely by omitting the issue from the formal definition of the offense and placing it in a separate affirmative-defense provision. That approach, Powell argued, elevates drafting form over constitutional substance and weakens Winship’s protection of the presumption of innocence.

Powell read Mullaney to require a more substantive inquiry. The prosecution must prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt when the fact substantially affects punishment and stigma and has historically played a central role in determining criminal culpability. Extreme emotional disturbance satisfied both criteria because it descended directly from the historically central heat-of-passion distinction between murder and manslaughter.

This approach would not unduly restrict legislative authority, according to the dissent. A State could abolish the murder-manslaughter distinction altogether, and it could generally require a defendant to bear the burden of producing enough evidence to put a mitigating issue before the jury. But once a State retained the traditional distinction and the defendant generated a genuine issue, the prosecution had to prove the absence of the mitigating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.