Supreme Court· 4/29/1985

Francis v. Franklin

Citations

471 U.S. 307
105 S. Ct. 1965
85 L. Ed. 2d 344
1985 U.S. LEXIS 4
53 U.S.L.W. 4495

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that \[l]anguage that merely contradicts and does not explain a constitutionally infirm instruction will not suffice to absolve the infirmity\
holding that while it violates due process for a factfinder to be required to find mens rea based on the presumption that a person “is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts,” a factfinder is permitted to infer intent based on a defendant’s actions
recognizing instances where curative instructions are inadequate to preserve a defendant’s constitutional rights
affirming the appellate court’s conclusion that the erroneous instructions could not be deemed harmless
\Language that merely contradicts and does not explain a constitutionally infirm instruction will not suffice to absolve the infirmity\
mandatory rebuttable presumption of. malice instruction unconstitutional because it shifts burden from State to defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Powell, Rehnquist, Burger, O'Connor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,307 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Francis v. Franklin

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Francis v. Franklin
Supreme Court· 1984-06-04

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.