Francis v. Franklin

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Criminal Law

471 U.S. 307 (1985)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawpresumptionsdue processburden shiftingmandatory presumptionpermissive inferenceintentreasonable doubt

Facts

Franklin was tried in Georgia for malice murder after, during an escape, a gun he was holding fired through a door and killed Collie. Franklin admitted firing the shot but claimed it was accidental when the victim slammed the door; intent to kill was the only contested issue at trial. The trial court instructed the jury that the acts of a person of sound mind are presumed to be the product of the person's will and that such a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, though the presumptions may be rebutted. The jury later requested reinstruction on intent and accident before returning a guilty verdict.

Issue

Whether jury instructions stating that a person of sound mind is presumed to will his acts and to intend their natural and probable consequences, even though the presumptions may be rebutted, violated the Fourteenth Amendment by relieving the State of its burden to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt when intent was the critical disputed element.

Rule

Under the Due Process Clause, the State may not use a jury instruction that relieves it of the burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the offense. A court must determine whether the instruction creates a mandatory presumption or merely a permissive inference; if a reasonable juror could understand the instruction as a mandatory presumption, including a mandatory rebuttable presumption, shifting to the defendant the burden of persuasion on an element, the instruction is unconstitutional unless the charge as a whole clearly explains and cures that defect.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a murder trial in Phoenix, the defendant admits firing a gun but claims the discharge was accidental. The judge instructs the jury: "If you find that Dana Ortiz intentionally pulled the trigger, you must infer that Dana intended the natural and probable consequences of that act."

If intent to kill is the only disputed element, which is the best assessment of the instruction?

Explanation. The key question is how a reasonable juror could understand the language. An instruction that the jury "must infer" intent from predicate facts is mandatory, not permissive. A mandatory presumption on an essential element relieves the State of part of its burden of persuasion and violates due process. The problem exists even if the predicate fact is otherwise proved.