Case Citator › Mullaney v. Wilbur

Mullaney v. Wilbur

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
421 U.S. 684
Decided
Confirmed treatments
8
Flagged citations read
114 of 114
Citing cases (total)
114
Treatment dates
1976–1979
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Mullaney v. Wilbur has been limited. All 114 flagged citations have been processed; 8 confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

114 later cases cite Mullaney v. Wilbur; 114 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Mullaney v. Wilbur?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • Following State v. Hankerson, the court limited Mullaney to prospective application in North Carolina trials conducted on or after June 9, 1975.

    State v. Walker · North Carolina Court of Appeals · filed

    We will, however, apply the decision to all trials conducted on or after June 9, 1975.” State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E. 2d 575 (1975). Therefore, this contention is overruled in view of our Supreme Court’s determination that in North Carolina Mullaney is to be given prospective effect only.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court held that Mullaney did not apply retroactively to a homicide trial completed before Mullaney was decided.

    State v. Jensen · North Carolina Court of Appeals · filed

    In State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E. 2d 575 (1975), decided 17 December 1975, our Supreme Court declined to give Mullaney retroactive effect. Trial of the present case took place in March 1975, prior to the decision in Mullaney. On the authority of State v. Hankerson, supra, we do not apply the principles announced in Mullaney to the present case, and defendant’s assignment of error based upon Mullaney is overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court applied Mullaney only prospectively and denied its benefit to a defendant whose trial occurred before Mullaney was announced.

    State v. Burleson · North Carolina Court of Appeals · filed

    The instant case was tried during the week of 24 April 1975. The Mullaney opinion was not announced until 9 July 1975. In State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E. 2d 575 (1975), tried at the 21 November 1974 Session of Nash County Superior Court, the Supreme Court of this State, affirming the opinion of this Court reported in 26 N.C. App. 575, 217 S.E. 2d 9 (1975), refused to give Mullaney retroactive effect in North Carolina and held that the defendant is not entitled to the benefit of the Mullaney doctrine. The Court held, however, that the Mullaney decision would be applied to all trials conducted on or after 9 June 1975. For the reasons set forth, this assignment of error is overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The First Circuit declined to extend Mullaney's burden-of-proof rule to the insanity defense and held that Leland remained controlling absent clearer Supreme Court direction.

    Peter J. Buzynski v. Richard M. Oliver, Warden, Maine State Prison · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · filed

    But the Court has not announced a per se rule. Each affirmative defense must be separately analyzed. Not only is there widespread diversity in practice among the states, but the subjective nature of proof of sanity or insanity may be deemed to be constitutionally significant.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Mullaney to invalidate Leland's rule allowing a defendant to bear the burden of proving insanity, dismissing for want of a substantial federal question an appeal presenting that conflict.

    Rivera v. Delaware · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice MARSHALL joins, dissenting. The Delaware Supreme Court held that Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952), required its conclusion, because Leland “has not been overruled by Mullaney (v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S. Ct. 1881 (1975)), . . . either expressly or implicitly.” 351 A.2d 561, 562 (1976). Because I believe this case presents the substantial federal question whether Leland can be reconciled with our recent holdings in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), and Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, I would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court confined Mullaney to burden shifting on facts treated as ingredients of the charged offense and rejected a broader rule requiring the prosecution to disprove every mitigating affirmative defense.

    Patterson v. New York · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Mullaney surely held that a State must prove every ingredient of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming that ingredient upon proof of the other elements of the offense. This is true even though the State’s practice, as in Maine, had been traditionally to the contrary. Such shifting of the burden of persuasion with respect to a fact which the State deems so important that it must be either proved or presumed is impermissible under the Due Process Clause.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court of North Carolina declined to extend Mullaney's burden-of-proof rule to the insanity defense and continued to place the burden of proving insanity on the defendant.

    State v. Caldwell · Supreme Court of North Carolina · filed

    Defendant argues, however, that Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 44 L.Ed. 2d 508, 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975), requires reallocation of the burden of proof with respect to insanity so that the burden must henceforth rest upon the State. The argument is unsound.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court of North Carolina declined to extend Mullaney's burden-of-proof rule to the insanity defense and reaffirmed its prior decision placing that burden on the defendant.

    State v. Johnson · Supreme Court of North Carolina · filed

    Defendant assigns as error the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion to require the State to refute the defense of insanity. Defendant argues that Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 44 L.Ed. 2d 508, 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975), requires reallocation of the burden of proof with respect to the defense of insanity. We expressly rejected the same argument in the recent case of State v. Caldwell, 293 N.C. 336, 237 S.E. 2d 742 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1075. Defendant acknowledges that Caldwell is contrary to his position and has shown nothing which requires reconsideration of that decision.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mullaney v. Wilbur and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace