noticing plain error, and holding that “trial courts must specifically instruct juries, where the record so warrants, that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not ignorant or mistaken as to a fact that negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the charged offense or offenses”
How later courts described this case
- noticing plain error, and holding that “trial courts must specifically instruct juries, where the record so warrants, that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not ignorant or mistaken as to a fact that negates the state of mind required to establish an element of the charged offense or offenses”
- holding "when a defendant asserts a non-affirmative defense and adduces evidence in support thereof, the circuit court must instruct the jury as to the prosecution's burden of proof with respect to negativing the defense"
- holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of negativing defendant's mistake-of-fact defense
- applying the presumption of harmfulness in the context of plain error review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
NAKAYAMA, J.
I dissent. I agree that the application for writ of certiorari should be granted, but would adopt the reasoning and result stated by Judge Nakamura in his dissent.