Burger v. Kemp

Eleventh Circuit

Burger v. Kemp

796 F.2d 1313

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 23, 1986

DocketNo. 81-7419

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 796 F.2d 1313 (Burger v. Kemp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burger v. Kemp, 796 F.2d 1313 (11th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion March 13, 1986, 11 Cir., 785 F.2d 890).

PER CURIAM:

The panel opinion of March 13, 1986 should not be interpreted as requiring a defendant to place intent explicitly in issue before he can prevail on a challenge to burden shifting instructions on criminal intent. The panel majority simply noted that evidence of intent is more likely to be overwhelming where the defendant has not attempted to counter the state’s evidence on criminal intent.

With the foregoing clarification of the panel opinion the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, Fed.R.App.P. 35, 11th Cir. Rule 26, the suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

Judge JOHNSON adheres to the viev/s previously expressed in his dissent from the panel opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion March 13, 1986, 11 Cir., 785 F.2d 890).

PER CURIAM:

The panel opinion of March 13, 1986 should not be interpreted as requiring a defendant to place intent explicitly in issue before he can prevail on a challenge to burden shifting instructions on criminal intent. The panel majority simply noted that evidence of intent is more likely to be overwhelming where the defendant has not attempted to counter the state’s evidence on criminal intent.

With the foregoing clarification of the panel opinion the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, Fed.R.App.P. 35, 11th Cir. Rule 26, the suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

Judge JOHNSON adheres to the viev/s previously expressed in his dissent from the panel opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

796 F.2d 1313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burger-v-kemp-ca11-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack