Case Citation: STATE of Washington, v. Antonio B. CANTU No. 76198-1., (2006).
Parties: Antonio B. Cantu, Petitioner
State of Washington, Respondent
Facts: Antonio Cantu was arrested and tried for the crime of burglary after he forcefully entered his mother’s room that had a deadbolt on it. Once inside the room, Cantu took some objects that belonged to his mother.
Procedural History: Cantu was originally charged with burglary, theft, possession of a legend drug, and minor in possession of alcohol. At the conclusion of the jury trial, Cantu was found guilty of only residential burglary. Cantu Appealed this decision to the state court of appeals, which affirmed …show more content…
The breaking in of the locked door and entering with the intention of committing burglary was illegal.
Issue 2:
Because due process places the burden of proof on the state, they must prove beyond any reasonable doubt every aspect of the criminal charges brought against the defendant. RCW 9A.52.040 may contain a valid use for the inference it still may shift this burden of proof to the defendant. This is the case when the jury was specifically instructed. “‘unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the jury to have been made without such criminal intent.’” Deal, 128 Wash.2d at 704, 911 P.2d 996; see RCW 9A.52.040
Decision:
Vacate conviction, even though RCW 9A.52.040 grants the use of inferring whether or not criminal intent exists. The due process entails the State to prove this persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt. This was not done by the trial judge and was also not followed by the court of appeals.
Comment: This case makes a very interesting point in regards to the process the courts must follow in proofing one’s criminal intent and the burden the state has to proof it. The state cannot make inferences about it shifting the burden to the
Parties: Antonio B. Cantu, Petitioner
State of Washington, Respondent
Facts: Antonio Cantu was arrested and tried for the crime of burglary after he forcefully entered his mother’s room that had a deadbolt on it. Once inside the room, Cantu took some objects that belonged to his mother.
Procedural History: Cantu was originally charged with burglary, theft, possession of a legend drug, and minor in possession of alcohol. At the conclusion of the jury trial, Cantu was found guilty of only residential burglary. Cantu Appealed this decision to the state court of appeals, which affirmed …show more content…
The breaking in of the locked door and entering with the intention of committing burglary was illegal.
Issue 2:
Because due process places the burden of proof on the state, they must prove beyond any reasonable doubt every aspect of the criminal charges brought against the defendant. RCW 9A.52.040 may contain a valid use for the inference it still may shift this burden of proof to the defendant. This is the case when the jury was specifically instructed. “‘unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the jury to have been made without such criminal intent.’” Deal, 128 Wash.2d at 704, 911 P.2d 996; see RCW 9A.52.040
Decision:
Vacate conviction, even though RCW 9A.52.040 grants the use of inferring whether or not criminal intent exists. The due process entails the State to prove this persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt. This was not done by the trial judge and was also not followed by the court of appeals.
Comment: This case makes a very interesting point in regards to the process the courts must follow in proofing one’s criminal intent and the burden the state has to proof it. The state cannot make inferences about it shifting the burden to the