Mullaney v. Wilbur
- Decided
- June 9, 1975
- Docket
- 74-13
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,396 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that prosecution must disprove adequate provocation beyond a reasonable doubt when the issue is raised in a homicide case — State v. Erazo (1991)
- holding that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged — Arkansas Public Defender Commission v. Greene County Circuit Court (2000)
- holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute a crime charged — Toufic Nagi v. United States (1996)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Maine requires a defendant charged with murder to prove that he acted “in the heat of passion on sudden provocation” in order to reduce the homicide to [*685] manslaughter. We must decide whether this rule comports with the due process requirement, as defined in In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364 (1970), that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.
I
Cite this
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.