Connection lost
Server error
SANDSTROM v. MONTANA Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A jury instruction stating “the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts” is unconstitutional. It may improperly shift the burden of proof for the mental state element from the prosecution to the defendant, violating due process.
Legal Significance: Established that a jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption on an element of a crime, such as intent, violates due process by relieving the state of its burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by In re Winship.
SANDSTROM v. MONTANA Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner David Sandstrom was charged with “deliberate homicide” under Montana law, which required the prosecution to prove he acted “purposely or knowingly.” At trial, Sandstrom admitted to causing the victim’s death but contended that due to a personality disorder aggravated by alcohol, he did not possess the requisite mental state. His defense focused exclusively on negating the element of intent. Over the defense’s objection, the trial judge instructed the jury that “[t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts.” The defense argued this instruction unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof on the element of intent to the defendant. Sandstrom was convicted, and the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed. The state court held that the instruction did not violate due process because it only placed a burden of production on the defendant to introduce “some evidence” that he did not have the required intent, not the burden of persuasion.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a jury instruction stating that “the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts” violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by relieving the State of its burden to prove the essential element of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt?
Yes. The jury instruction is unconstitutional because a reasonable juror could have Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a jury instruction stating that “the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts” violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by relieving the State of its burden to prove the essential element of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt?
Conclusion
This case provides a critical due process limitation on the use of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali
Legal Rule
A jury instruction that a reasonable juror could interpret as creating either Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla paria
Legal Analysis
The Court determined the instruction's constitutionality based on how a reasonable juror Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A jury instruction that “the law presumes that a person intends