Ward v. State

Phipps, Presiding Judge.

Adrian Ward appeals his conviction for theft by taking a motor vehicle,1 challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the court’s charge to the jury. We find that the jury charge had the effect of shifting the burden of persuasion to Ward, in violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause, and that this error was not harmless. We therefore reverse. Because the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, however, Ward may be retried.2

1. When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support…