United States v. McRae

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979 · Evidence

593 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1979)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencejury instructionsprosecutorial misconductRule 403rebuttal evidencemalice aforethoughtdeadly weapon inferenceMann charge

Facts

McRae admitted shooting his wife through the head with a deer rifle at point-blank range, but claimed the shooting was accidental rather than malicious. The evidence, viewed in favor of the verdict, showed repeated prior threats by McRae to kill his wife, including a threat to blow her brains out with the same rifle, and further threats on the day of the killing. He sent the children into the bathroom, retrieved the rifle and ammunition, loaded and cocked the gun while his wife sat in a chair, and the gun discharged as he approached her. Afterward he ejected the spent cartridge, pocketed it, left without helping her, told neighbors he had to do it, and told a fellow military policeman that he had killed his wife.

Issue

Whether the district court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances, by omitting renewed emphasis on "sudden quarrel" in the voluntary manslaughter instruction, by reading the first-degree murder definition, by allowing improper prosecutorial argument, and by admitting graphic photographs and rebuttal evidence about McRae's later intimate relationships.

Rule

The vice of a forbidden Mann-type instruction is burden shifting: it becomes improper when the jury is told both that the law presumes or reasonably infers intent from knowing acts and that this applies unless the contrary appears from the evidence. By contrast, an instruction that the jury may, but need not, infer malice from use of a deadly weapon in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances is permissible when the charge as given does not create a presumption, does not place any burden on the defendant, and clearly states that the government must prove every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Rule 403, relevant evidence should be excluded only for unfair prejudice substantially outweighing probative value, and that power must be used cautiously and sparingly. Prosecutorial remarks are assessed in context of the whole record, including the strength of the evidence and the character and frequency of the remarks.

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 federal homicide trial in San Antonio, Devin Cole admits that his pistol discharged and killed his business partner but insists the shooting was accidental. The judge instructs the jury that if it finds Devin used a deadly weapon to cause death, it may infer malice in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances, but it is not required to do so, and the government must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is the instruction most likely proper?

Explanation. The majority approved an instruction allowing, but not requiring, the jury to infer malice from use of a deadly weapon in the absence of explanatory or mitigating circumstances, so long as the charge does not create a presumption and repeatedly makes clear that the government bears the burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the situation here.