Cupp v. Naughten
414 U.S. 141 (1973)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973)

Cupp v. Naughten

No. 72-1148

Argued October 16, 1973

Decided December 4, 1973

414 U.S. 141

Syllabus

At respondent's Oregon criminal trial, the trial judge charged, in accordance with a state statutory provision:

"Every witness is presumed to speak the truth. This presumption may be overcome by the manner in which the witness testifies, by the nature of his or her testimony, by evidence affecting his or her character, interest, or motives, by contradictory evidence or by a presumption."

Respondent was convicted and, following exhaustion of his state remedies, brought this federal habeas corpus action. The Court of Appeals, reversing the District Court, concluded that the "presumption of truthfulness" instruction placed the burden of proving innocence upon the defendant, and thus did not comport with due process.

Held: The instruction cannot be considered in isolation, and, when viewed, as it must be, in the context of the overall charge, in which the trial court twice gave explicit instructions affirming the presumption of innocence and declaring the State's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, did not so infect the entire trial that the resulting conviction violated the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the challenged instruction having neither shifted the burden of proof to the defendant nor negated the presumption of innocence accorded under state law. In re Winship,397 U. S. 358, distinguished. Pp. 414 U. S. 144 150.

476 F.2d 845, reversed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 414 U. S. 150.

Page 414 U. S. 142

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.