Reith v. State, 135 So. 3d 862

Reith and Tammy divorced in 2007 and shared custody of their child Dylan.
Tammy threatened to move Dylan to Alaska; Reith petitioned chancery court for a TRO and injunction to prevent removal.
On March 23, 2010 Tammy visited Reith’s apartment; Dylan was not home and an argument occurred about Dylan’s relocation.
Reith killed Tammy during the dispute; he admitted the killing but claimed he “blacked out.”
Reith was convicted of murder at trial, sentenced to life imprisonment; the Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether S-5 error was harmless or not	Reith argues S-5 impermissibly presumes intent.	State argues no error in giving S-5.	Not harmless; the presumption conflicts with innocence
Whether presuming deliberate design from a deadly weapon violates due process	Reith contends S-5 presumes intent in violation of due process.	State claims admissibility of such presumptions is appropriate under precedent.	Presumption of intent may not be used; S-5 must be rejected

Tran v. State, 681 So.2d 514 (Miss. 1996) (instruction on presumed malice from deadly weapon improper where facts established)
Williams v. State, 111 So.3d 620 (Miss. 2013) (presumption of intent violates due process if it shifts burden)
Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984) (presumption of intent conflicts with ultimate burden of proof)
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1962) (intent is an essential element; cannot be presumed)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (presumption of innocence safeguards essential elements)
Williams v. State, 965 So.2d 1023 (Miss. 2007) (presumption of intent conflicts with State’s burden)
Newell v. State, 49 So.3d 66 (Miss. 2010) (context on evaluating juror instructions)