## Facts

- After midnight on June 29, 1974, several individuals who had been drinking became involved in an escalating roadway encounter that ended in a courtyard with a physical fight.
- Mark A. Shuck rode as a passenger in a Corvette driven by John Jackman; a GTO driven by Buddy Voelker accelerated away from a light, and Jackman pursued.
- During the chase, the Corvette cut off a pickup truck driven by George Parker, causing Parker to brake hard and strike his head; Parker then chased the sports cars.
- The vehicles stopped in a single-entrance courtyard; Voelker exited and initially spoke with Jackman, but when Parker arrived he blocked the exit and began fighting with Jackman; Voelker joined the struggle.
- Shuck claimed he tried to pull Voelker off the group, Voelker grabbed and struck him, and Shuck then retrieved a baseball bat from the Corvette.
- Shuck swung the bat at least twice, striking Parker (minor injury) and striking Voelker in the head, killing him.
- Evidence shortly after the incident showed Jackman had facial bleeding and marks consistent with being choked, supporting that the fight was serious and violent.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to submit to the jury the charges of second-degree murder (Voelker) and assault with intent to murder (Parker).
2. Whether the trial court gave an erroneous instruction concerning the use of a deadly weapon.
3. Whether instructing that malice could be presumed and that the defendant bore the burden to show mitigation (to reduce murder to manslaughter) violated due process principles requiring the State to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support convictions for second-degree murder and assault with intent to murder.
- The court rejected the claim that the deadly-weapon instruction, when read with the full charge, constituted reversible error.
- The court affirmed the convictions but remanded without affirmance of the sentences for reconsideration of the malice/mitigation burden-shifting instruction in light of due process requirements.

## Legal Principles

- On appellate review of sufficiency, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution; conflicts in testimony about aggression and self-defense are for the jury to resolve.
- Intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm may be inferred from the use of a potentially lethal weapon and the manner and location of the blow, including striking a vital part of the body.
- Where evidence fairly generates mitigation (including imperfect self-defense or heat of passion concepts), due process requires the State to bear the burden of persuasion to negate mitigation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Jury instructions implying a presumption of malice and placing on the defendant the burden to prove mitigation raise constitutional error and may require remand for corrective action, even if the convictions are otherwise supported.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Shuck’s convictions because the jury could infer the required intent and lack of justification from his use of a baseball bat during the fight, but it remanded for reconsideration of sentencing and instructions because allocating to the defendant the burden to prove mitigation, and presuming malice, conflicted with due process requirements.


Shuck v. State, 349 A.2d 378 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975)