Roberson v. State
Opinion
Taft Roberson shot and killed Keith Agee with a rifle. He appeals his conviction of murder and sentence to life imprisonment.1
1. Roberson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After reviewing the record and facts of the case, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
2. Roberson contends that the court’s charge to the jury impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (99 SC 2450, 61 LE2d 39) (1979). The trial [240] court charged that “a presumption is a conclusion which the law draws from given facts”; that presumptions are rebuttable; and that the State must prove every element of the crime, including intent, beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the charge as a whole, we find no error in the court’s instructions. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
319 S.E.2d 444 (Roberson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.