proof of other elements of the crime, the act of slaying another. This the Court found to be unconstitutional in that it “undermined the factfinder’s responsibility at trial, based on the evidence adduced by the State, to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt.” 105 S.Ct. at 1972 citing County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. at 156, 99 S.Ct. at 2224. In Franklin, the State argued that the language of the instruction allowing the presumption “may be rebutted” differentiated Franklin from Sandstrom, but the Court disagreed. The Court held that mandatory rebuttable presumptions are no less unconstitutional than mandatory conclusive .presumptions, even if slightly less onerous. 105 S.Ct. at 1973. See also Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. at 698-70, 95 S.Ct. at 1889-1890 (<HOLDING>). “When combined with the immediately preceding
holding unconstitutional a mandatory rebuttable presumption that shifted to the defendant a burden of persuasion on the issue of intent holding that the improper use of a mixedmotive instruction in a butfor case shifted the burden of persuasion on a central issue in the case and therefore the error cannot be harmless recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant holding that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof and persuasion as to the existence of standing holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption