In 1934, petitioner was indicted for murdering a policeman in Burlington, Jowa. Petitioner claimed that he was innocent and that he had not been present at the scenе of the crime. At the trial, several witnesses testified that petitioner had been in Dеs Moines, 165 miles away from Burlington, on the day that the crime was committed. The trial judge instruсted the jury that for the petitioner to be entitled to an acquittal on the ground
*254
that he was not present at the scene of the crime, the petitioner must have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not present.
1
The jury found petitioner guilty of second-degree murder, and petitioner was sеntenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Cоurt.
State
v.
Johnson,
In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner argued, among other рoints, that the State had denied him due process of law by placing on him the burden оf proving the alibi defense. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa rеjected this argument and denied the petition. The United States Court of Appeаls for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Notes
The instruction was as follows:
“The burden is upon the defendant to prove [the] defense [of alibi] by a preponderancе of the evidence, that is, by the greater weight or superior evidence. The defense of alibi to be entitled to be considered as established must show that at the very time of the commission of the crime the accused was at another place so far away, or under such circumstances that he could not with ordinаry exertion have reached the place where the crime was cоmmitted so as to have committed the same. If by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant has so shown, the defense must be considered established and the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal. But if the proof of alibi has failed so to show, you will not consider it established or proved. The evidenсe upon that point is to be considered by the jury, and if upon the whole case including the evidence of an alibi, there is a reasonable doubt of defendаnt’s guilt, you should acquit him.”
See also
State
v.
Johnson,
The other issues were whether the State had supprеssed evidence favorable to petitioner and intentionally used false evidence at petitioner’s trial, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The instruction in
Stump
was similar tо the one in the present ease. The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s contention that any error was harmless because the jury was also instruсted that the State had the burden of proving "the crime as a whole” beyond a rеasonable doubt. The court pointed out that, in view of the instruction’s inconsistency, reasonable minds could infer that the defendant retained the burden of proving nоnpresence.
In Stump, the Court of Appeals said:
“[W]e are not directly faced with issues of retroactivity. We rеcognize that a panel of this court in Johnson v. Bennett, also a habeas сorpus proceeding by an Iowa state prisoner, refused relief as to а number of matters, including the alibi instruction. The Johnson case concededly has some factual distinctions from the present one. Also significant is the fact that in the Stump case, unlike Johnson, counsel has carefully preserved by objections throughout the trial and appellаte procedures his argument as to the unconstitutionality of the instruction.” (Citations оmitted.)398 F. 2d, at 122-123 .
We express no opinion as to the validity of the distinctions suggested by the Court оf Appeals. Instead, we deem it appropriate to remand to that court for a definite ruling on the issue.