00-0541 State v. Harvey

Listen to this article

This is because a jury instruction that directs a jury to accept as true a judicially-noticed fact that constitutes an element of the crime is indistinguishable from a mandatory conclusive presumption on an elemental fact, which is unconstitutional under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979).

However, this error was harmless because it cannot be and is not disputed that the park in question is a city park, and we therefore affirm defendant’s conviction under the enhanced penalty provision.

“The Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and the Fifth Amendment due process requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are obviously interrelated. … In other words, the jury verdict required by the Sixth Amendment is a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Accordingly, jury instructions that have the effect of relieving the State of its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. …

“Here, judicial notice – or, more particularly, the jury instruction directing the jury to accept the judicially-noticed fact as true – was applied to an element of the enhanced offense. This had the effect of not merely undermining but eliminating the jury’s opportunity to reach an independent, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt decision on that element, and was therefore constitutional error. The incontestability of Penn Park’s status as a city park goes to whether the error was harmless, not whether there was constitutional instructional error in the first place. …

“A constitutional or other error is harmless if it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’… By this standard, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Affirmed.

Court of Appeals; Sykes, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Margaret A. Maroney, Stephen P. Weiss, Madison

For Respondent: Lara M. Herman, James E. Doyle, Madison