# Petition — Leroy Chasson v. Joseph Ponte > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_1328%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1983 - **Citation:** 459 U.S. 1162 ## Text “4 PECEIVED 7 Ocr. 29,1992. WO — 3082 Or, tee wt batt wich 4 SUPREME Pave? 1 ». 82 5646 In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1962 LEROY CHASSON, Petitioner Ve JOSEPH PONTE and PRANCIS BELIOITI, Respordents PETITION POR A WRIT OF CERTICRARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS POR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Robert L. Sheketoff ZALKIND, ZALKIND & SHEKETOFF 65a Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02110 (617) 742-6020 Attorney for Petitioner Chasson QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. CAN OTHER INSTRUCTIONS TO A JURY EVER CURE AN UNCONSTTIVUTIONAL INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENT OF INTENT? 2. CAN A PROPER INSTRUCTION TO A JURY ON THE ELEMENT OF PREMEDITATION CURE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUCTION ON THE ELEMENT OF INTENT? 3. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES MAY IT BE ASSUMED THAT A REASONABLE JUROR COULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL “PRESUMED INTENT* INSTRUCTION? PARTIES Petioner Leroy Chasson is presently sentenced to natural life at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole, Massachusetts. Respondents are Joseph Ponte, the Superintendant at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole, Massachusetts, and Francis Bellotti, the Attorney General of Massachusetts. afie TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinions Below Jurisdiction Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved Statement of the Case Reasone for Granting the Writ Conclusion Apperxdix Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts penn of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts oe www w& & A? Al3 “ili- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED Page(s) Cases Commonwealth v. Chasson, 423 N.E. 2d 306 (Mass. 1981)......2, Dietz v. Solem, 640 F.2d 126 (8th Cir. 1961).........000006, Hariess v. Anderson, 664 F.2d 610 (6th Cir. 1981)..........6 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 Coe ec dhecnceceesucccesececs.! Nelson Vv. Seul Ye 672 F.2d 266 (2nd cir. nae He Sandstrom v. Montana, 422 U.S. 510 Cee Plavcccceccecsccctoete United States v. Chiantese, 560 F.2d 1244 (Sth Cir. 1977)..6 United States v. Spiegel, 604 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. EP eheccccbe United States v. Williams, 665 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 198@1)....6 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Fourteenth AMMO... cccccccccecccccccccccessccccccccccceed Be Rs Pei sccncccksccnusscnnsasunsunnesunessscvancasel Be Fein cneenccicccnuncsécesensencstcatecceveessl OO OE, Feiss onnnsensccceseceninccveceescensecavenvel tt 4 8 6, 7, 8 JOSEPH PONTE and FRANCIS BELIOTTI, Respondents PETITION POR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS POR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Leroy Chasson petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit entered in this case on August 3, 1962. ie Qpinions Below The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing Chasson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus has not been published. Tt is set out in the Appendix, infra., pp. Al to Aé. The opinion of the District Court digmissing the habeas corpus petition is not published. It is set out in the Appendix, infra., pe. A? to Al2. The opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which forms the basis for the habeas corpus petition, is reported as Commormealth v. Chasson, 423 N.E. 24 306 (Mss. 1981). It is set cut in the Appendix, infra., pp. Al3 to A20. Jurisdiction The judgement of the Court of Appeals was entered on August 3, 1962, and this petition has been filed within ninety days of that date, as required by 28 U.S.C. §210li(c). Jursidiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). Constitutional Provisions Involved This case involves Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gection 1 of the Fourteenth Amendzent to the United States Constitut ‘un provides: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and sub to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens Of the United States and of every state wherein Statement of the Case Petitioner seeks review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming a judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, dismissing petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 26 U.S.C. §2254. Petitioner's central claim arises fran an instruction by the state trial court judge to the jury at petitioner's trial for first degree murder and assault and tattery by means of a Geadly weapon. In instructing the jury on the element of intent, the trial judge stated that a person is presumed to intend the ordinary and natural consequences of his acts. The judge's instruction relieved the Commonwealth of the burden of proving beyond @ reasonable doubt an essential element of each of the crimes, and shifted the burden of proof on that element to the defendant. Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law was thereby violated. Petitioner claims that the court's proper instruction on the element of premeditation in first degree murder did not cure the error in the instruction on intent, and that proper instructions on other elements of an alleged crime can never cure a “presumed intent" instruction. The petitioner further claims that a reasonable juror could have relied on the “presumed intent“ instruction in reaching his verdict of guilty. State Court Proceedings On September 8, 1977 a grand jury sitting in Norfolk County, Massachusetts, returned indictments against Leroy Chasson, charging him with murder in the first degree of Paul Melody and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon on Robert Hayward. Chasson was tried before McGuire, J. and a jury on May 15 to June 1, 1978. At trial, petitioner argued that the killing and injury of the alleged victims occurred when, in the confusion of a scuffle, petitioner in gelf-defense waved out with a knife which he had picked up from the ground. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court judge gave the following instruction on the element of intent: So we have the words that must be discussed and Appendix to this petition, p. A}. No further instructions were given on the element of intent. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both indictments, and petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for his natural life. On March 18, 1981, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions. Commorwealth v. Leroy Chasson, 423 N.E. 2d 306. ‘The Court characterized the trial judge's instruction on intent as "obscure", and held that because of its obscurity, and because the trial judge properly charged the jury on the element of deliberate premeditation, the jury could not have reasonably understood the instruction either as shifting the burden of proof fram the Commorwealth or as creating a constitutionally impermissible presumption. Id. at 312-313. ~Pederal Court Proceedings Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming that his constitutional right to due process of law was violated by the “presumed intent" instruction. The petition was digmissed by Mazzone, D.J. on January 7, 1982, on the grounds that although it is always error to instruct that a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts, the error was cured in this case by the trial judge's other instructions, particularly the instruction on Geliberate premeditation. ‘The Court further held that any error in the instruction on intent was harmless, because petition admitted intent in arguing a theory of self-defense.! The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, holding that the instruction on deliberate premeditation cured any error in the “presumed intent" instruction. Reasons for Granting the Writ The decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals that an unconstitutional “presumed intent" instruction can be cured by correct instructions on other elements of a crime raises an important question of constitutional law which this Court has yet to decide. In Sarmistrom v. Montana, 422 U.S. 510 (1979), this Court held that a “presumed intent" instruction, essentially identical to the instruction challenged by petitioner, violated the Fourteenth Amendment requirement that the state prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doult. The opinion in Sandstrom did not, however, reach the question of whethes « “preowned intent" instruction could ever be cured by proper instructions to the jury on other elements of the crime, and the Circuit Courts of Appeal are in conflict on this point. Petitioner's case syuarely presents the issue for the Court's consideration. - a 1 this latter position is untenable since petitioner at trial not admit intent to kill, nor did he need to do so in to eelf~defense under state law. The First Circuit did not rely on this position. l. There is a conflict among the Circuits about whether a “presumed intent" instruction oan be cured by other instructions. The Circuit Courts of Appeal are divided on the question of whether an unconstitutional “presumed intent" instruction can be cured by instructions on the other elements of the alleged criminal offense. The First Circuit found a cure in petitioner's case in instructions on the element of deliberate premeditation. The Second Circuit has a similar practice, finding a cure in other jury instructions when a presumed intent instruction has been given. Nelson v. Scully, 672 F.2d 266 (2nd Cir. 1962), cert. den., 102 S.Ct. 2301 (1982). The Eighth Circuit, however, has held that a “presumed intent" instruction is almost always constitutional error in itself, and that it is highly unlikely that other instructions could ever mitigate so serious a mistake. Dietz v. Golem, 640 F.2d 126, 131 (8th Cir. 1981). The Fifth Circuit has indicated its puzzlement about whether Sandstrom requires application of the prophylactic rule that when a “presumed intent" instruction is given, then constitutiom] error will automtically be found. United States v. Spiegel, 604 F.2d 961, 969, n.15 (Sth Cir. 1979), cert. den., 446 U.S. 935. Gee also United States v. Chiantese, 560 F.2d 1244, 1255 (Sth Cir. 1977), cert. den. 44). U.S. 922. The Sixth Circuit has not directly considered whether Sandstrom bars looking to other instructions to cure a "presumed intent" instruction, but its opinions show a clear reluctance to search for a cure. United States v. Williams, 665 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1981); “arless v. Anderson, 664 F.24 610 (6th Cir. 1981). 2. A fundamentally important question of constitutional law has been left unresolved due to uncertainty about the effect of a “presumed intent" instruction. Important constitutional rights are endangered when a jury is given confusing and inconsistent instructions on the elements of a criminal offense. It is a well-established proposition that due process requires that each element of a criminal offense be proven by the state beyond a reasonable douwkt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). When a jury is given a “presumed intent" instruction as part of a larger package of instructions, there is no guarantee that a jury will not rely upon that instruction either to conclusively presume that the defendant possessed the requisite criminal intent or to shift the burden of proof on the element of intent to the defendant. This Court recognized that danger in Sandstran when it held that other instructions about the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable Goubt that the defendant caused the death purposely or knowingly could not compensate for the damage done by a “presumed intent" instruction. The case at bar illustrates very clearly the likelihood of prejudice to a defendant's rights when courts look to other instructions to cure a “presumed intent" instruction. The First Cirenit found a cure in the trial judge's instruction on deliberate premeditation. {O]ur Courts have said that deliberate : ; i ii Under this instruction, a jury finding of deliberate premeditation is consistent with the jury presuming intent and, having thereby found intent, going to find that formation of intent must have occurred prior to the act. Once the erroneous instruction has been given and the judge has not directly instructed the jury to ignore that instruction, there is no reason to believe that a jury will not rely upon it in a constitutionally abjectionable wey. In determining whether constitutional error has been comnitted, the Circuit Courts now employ the test of whether a reasonable juror would have relied on the “presumed intent" instruction. Dietz v._ Solem, supra. at 131; Nelson v. Scully, supra. at 271. This superficially uniform rule masks an actual wide range of practices by the Circuit Courts in deciding whether an abjectionable instruction has been cured. Dietz v. Solem, supra.; Nelson v. Scully, supra. Without guidance from this Court, the law on a critical point of constitutional doctrine will continue to vary by Circuit. At least one Circuit has called on this Court to clarify its position on whether a “presumed intent" instruction can ever be cured by other instructions. United States v. Spiegel, supra. at 969, n.15. ‘The unanimous opinion in Sandstrom reflects the seriousness of the violation of constitutional rights which occurs when a jury is given a “presumed intent" instruction. The holding in Sandstrom is completely undercut if a too quick and too easy cure is found for the clear violation of due process which this Court found in the “presumed intent" instruction. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, and in order to secure petitioner's rights to due process of law, the writ should be granted. Dated: 10 [2a/¢z Respectfully submitted, beted fut Robert L. Sheketoff ZALZIND, ZALKIND & SHEKETOFF 65a Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02110 (617) 742-6020 Attorney for Petitioner Chasson --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385010_1328%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.