 (1983)); (2) the evidence against Hernandez was significant; and (3) the jury was properly instructed that the burden was upon the state to prove guilt, not upon Hernandez to prove his innocence and, therefore, "the improper instruction did not have meaningful effect on the deliberations of the jury." District Court Memorandum and Order at 2-3. We examine these holdings seriatim.

10

A defendant's assertion of self-defense does not necessarily admit intent to commit murder. In Johnson, the Court held that in presenting such a defense, "a defendant may in some cases admit that the act" was intentional. 460 U.S. at 87, 103 S.Ct. at 977-78 (emphasis added). We find no such admission here. Indeed, the defense argued Hernandez did not intend to kill the victim.

11

The district court also held that significant evidence of intent was presented at trial. In examining this holding, we must "make a judgment about the significance of the presumption to reasonable jurors, when measured against the other evidence considered by those jurors independently of the presumption." Yates v. Evatt, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d 432 (1991). We first look at what evidence presented to the jury tended to prove or disprove the presumption of intent. Id. Next, we weigh the probative force of that evidence against the probative force of the presumption standing alone. Id.

12

The evidence showed Hernandez shot and killed a fellow patron of a club in Wichita, Kansas. The two had had prior altercations including one two years previously when Hernandez had been beaten severely enough to require medical attention. The two men argued at the club the night of the murder.

13

Less than an hour after the argument, Hernandez went to the table where the victim was sitting and fired four shots at him. Two shots to the victim's head and chest were fatal, the other two, one of which struck the victim in the arm and one of which grazed the victim's arm, were not. Hernandez was restrained by another patron, Perez. The evidence was unclear whether Hernandez was restrained after only two shots had been fired or after all four shots had been fired. The bartender/co-owner testified he thought only one shot had been fired prior to the one which hit him in the ankle, apparently after grazing the victim's arm.

14

Test
(1983) ); (2) the evidence against Hernandez was significant; and (3) the jury was properly instructed that the burden was upon the department of state to rise guilt, not upon Hernandez to prove his innocence and, therefore, " the improper education did not have meaningful effect on the slowness of the jury. " District Court Memorandum and Order at 2 - 3. We probe these holdings seriatim. 

 10 

 A defendant's assertion of self - defense does not necessarily accommodate intent to commit murder. In Johnson, the Court hold that in presenting such a defense, " a defendant may in some cases accept that the act " was intentional. 460 U.S. at 87, 103 S.Ct. at 977 - 78 (emphasis added). We line up no such admission here. Indeed, the defense argued Hernandez did not intend to stamp out the victim. 

 11 

 The district court also held that significant evidence of intent was present at trial. In examining this holding, we must " make a judgment about the meaning of the given to fair jurors, when measured against the other evidence considered by those jurors independently of the presumption. " Yates v. Evatt, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d 432 (1991). We first count at what evidence give to the jury tended to prove or disprove the presumption of purpose. Id. Next, we count the probative force of that evidence against the probative force of the given standing entirely. Id. 

 12 

 The evidence showed Hernandez shot and killed a fellow patron of a golf club in Wichita, Kansas. The two had had prior altercations including one two years previously when Hernandez had been beaten severely enough to require medical attention. The two men argue at the club the nox of the murder. 

 13 

 Less than an hour after the controversy, Hernandez went to the table where the victim was sitting and fired four injection at him. Two shots to the victim's head and chest were fateful, the other two, one of which struck the victim in the arm and one of which grazed the victim's branch, were not. Hernandez was restrained by another patron, Perez. The evidence was unclear whether Hernandez was restrain after only two shot had been fired or after all four nip had been fired. The bartender / co - owner testified he thought only one blastoff had been fired prior to the one which hit him in the ankle, apparently after grazing the victim's arm. 

 14 

 Test
 (1983)); (2) hhe evidence against Herkandez was signiyucant; end (3) ths jury wxs properly instructed that vhe vurdeb was upon the state tu prove glilt, not ypon Yernandez vk prove his ihkocenee and, therefore, "the impro[er instructiot aib not have meaningful effect on the qeliberstlons of the juty." Dixericf Court Memorandum and Order at 2-3. Ws examiie these holdinbs seriatim.

10

A defendant's asdertlon of self-defense does not ngdesfqrily admit kntent to bmmmit murdgr. In Johnson, the Court held thag in 'resenting wuxh w defense, "a vefendwnt may in some casev admit that the act" eas inrentional. 460 U.S. at 87, 103 S.Cv. at 977-78 (emphasis added). We find to such admission hwrw. Indged, tve dddenre zrjues Hernwndxz did not jntend to kull the victim.

11

The dosegoct court alao helq ehat significant evidence of intent was prssented at trial. In exanining this holding, wg must "makq a judgment about the significance of the presum[tion go xcwrinwble jurors, when measured against the other edjdtncv considered by tmose jurors indepemdfnyjy of the prerumption." Gates v. Evatt, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1893, 114 L.Ed.2e 432 (1991). We fiwst kook at what evidence presebted to the lurt tended to prove lr disprove the presimption of intent. Id. Nert, we seigh the pgobative rurce of that eviaenbe acainst the probative force of the pcesum'tion stxndimg aloge. Id.

12

The egidenga showed Hernandez shot atd killed w fellow patron of a club in Wiriita, Kansas. Tne twm had hab priov altercations yncluding one jwo years prevkously wheh Hernaidez had beeg beaten sevesgly enough to require meducal attentkun. The two men argued an uhe club tye night of the muvder.

13

Lgsa than an hour cyttr the argument, Nervanqed wxnt tj the table wvere thd victkm was sittlng and fired four shots at him. Two shots to the figtim's heae and chqst were fatak, the other two, ont of wiich svruck yhe victim in the arm and one of shich graxed the victim's arm, were not. Hexnandez was restrained by another patron, Perez. The evidencw was unclear whethgr Mernandez wax reserained axter only two shots yad been fired or after all four shots had baen flred. The bartender/co-owner testified he thought only one shot had been firwd prior to the ons whoch hpt kim in thq annue, apparently afner grazing the victim's arm.

14

Test
(1983)); (2) the evidence against Hernandez was (3) jury was instructed that the to guilt, not upon to prove his and, therefore, "the improper instruction did have meaningful effect on the deliberations of the jury." District Court Memorandum and at 2-3. We examine these holdings seriatim. 10 A defendant's assertion of self-defense not admit to murder. In Johnson, the Court held that in presenting such a defense, "a defendant may in cases admit that the act" was intentional. 460 at 87, 103 S.Ct. 977-78 (emphasis added). We find such here. Indeed, defense Hernandez not intend to the victim. 11 The district court also held that significant evidence of intent was presented at trial. examining this must "make judgment the of the presumption jurors, when measured against the other those jurors independently of the presumption." Yates v. --- U.S. 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d (1991). We first look at what evidence presented the jury tended to prove or disprove the presumption of intent. Id. Next, we weigh force of that evidence the probative force the standing Id. The evidence Hernandez shot and killed a fellow patron of a club in Kansas. The two had had prior altercations including one two when had been beaten enough to require medical The men argued at the night the than hour the argument, Hernandez went the table where the victim sitting and fired four to the victim's head and chest were fatal, other two, one of which struck the in the arm and one of which grazed the victim's arm, were Hernandez was another patron, Perez. The evidence was unclear whether was restrained after only shots had been fired or after all four shots been The bartender/co-owner he thought only shot had been prior to the hit him the apparently victim's arm. 14 Test
 (1983)); (2) the evidence against HernandEz was signiFicanT; anD (3) thE jUry wAs prOperly instructED thaT the burden was upon the stAte to PrOVe guILt, Not upOn HernaNDeZ TO prOvE hIs iNnOCeNce anD, thErefore, "The impropeR inStRuction did noT HaVe meaningfUl eFfect on the deLibEratioNs Of tHE jury." disTrict court MEMorandUm and OrdeR aT 2-3. we examINe these HOLdIngs Seriatim.

10

A defendanT'S aSSertion of self-dEfense DoES nOT NecEssArily admit InTent tO Commit mURdER. iN JoHNson, the Court hEld that in prESenTing suCh A deFEnse, "a dEfendAnT May In some cases AdmiT that the aCt" was iNTentionAL. 460 U.S. at 87, 103 S.CT. at 977-78 (empHasIs aDded). wE fInD no SuCH adMIsSioN HerE. Indeed, tHe DeFense ArguED hERnanDez Did nOt intEnd to kill the vIctIm.

11

ThE DisTrict Court Also HeLd thaT signiFicanT eVidence of intent Was pResented aT trIaL. In ExAminiNG this hOldIng, We must "mAke a judGMenT aBOUT tHe significance of thE pRESuMption to ReasonABlE jURors, when MeAsuRed aGAInst tHe otHEr Evidence ConsidEReD bY those jUrOrs indEpEndEntLy of tHE preSumptiOn." Yates v. evatt, --- u.s. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d 432 (1991). We firsT Look at what eviDEnCE PrESentEd tO the jury tenDed tO ProvE or dISpRovE The prEsumpTiON oF Intent. Id. Next, we weigh ThE probaTive fOrce of that eviDence againST THe probatIve fORcE Of the presumptiOn staNding alone. iD.

12

The evidEnce sHowed HerNandez shoT ANd killed A feLloW paTroN OF a Club in Wichita, kANsas. thE two had Had Prior alTerCatIonS inClUding one tWo years pReViOuSlY whEn HerNAndez had BeEn bEaTen SeverELy enouGh to rEquiRe MeDIcaL attentIOn. tHE two MeN aRgueD at ThE club The nIGht Of the muRder.

13

Less tHan AN houR aFtEr the arGument, HernandEz Went to the tAbLe wHere thE VIctim was Sitting and fired four shotS At him. TwO shOts to The vIctim's heaD anD chest WerE Fatal, tHe otheR two, oNe Of wHICh strUCK tHe vIcTim in the arM ANd oNe of wHiCh grAzed the Victim's arm, were not. HERnaNdez was restraIneD by aNOThEr pATrON, PeReZ. the EVIdence was uncleaR whether HeRnANdEz was restrAIneD aFter onlY two shoTs had BEen fireD or after aLl four shoTs Had bEEN fiRed. The bartEnder/co-oWner testiFIed he THoUght oNly One shoT hAd bEen fiRed priOR to The onE which HiT him in The anKlE, apparenTly after grazing the victiM's arm.

14

TEst
 (1983)); (2) the evidence  against H ernan dez  wa ssign ific ant; and (3) t h e ju ry was properly instru ctedth a t th e  b urden  was up o nt h e s ta te  to  p r ov e gui lt,  not up on Hernand ezto  prove his i n no cence and,  th erefore, "th e i mprope rins t ructi ondid n ot hav e  meani ngful eff ec t  on th e  delibe r a ti onsof the jury." Dis t ri c t Court Memora ndum a nd Or d e r a t 2 -3. We exa mi ne th e se hold i ng s s eri a tim.

10

A d efendant'sa sse rtionof  se l f-defe nse d oe s  no t necessari ly a dmit inte nt toc ommit m u rder. I n John son , t he C o ur thel dt hat in  pr e sen ting suc hadefen se," a d efen dan t ma y insome cases ad mit  tha t  th e act " was  int en tiona l. 460  U.S.  a t 87, 103 S.Ct.  at977-78 (e mph as isad ded). We fin d n o s uch adm issionh ere .I n d ee d, the defense arg ue d He rnandezdid no t  i nt e nd to ki ll  th e vi c t im.
11
T he  distric t cour t  a ls o heldth at sig ni fic ant  evid e nceof int ent wasprese n ted at trial.I n examining t h is h ol d ing,  we  must "make  a j u dgme nt a b ou t t h e sig nific an c eo f the presumption t oreason ablejurors, whenmeasured a g a i nst theothe r  e v idence conside red b y those ju r ors inde pende ntly ofthe presu m p tion." Y ate s v . E vat t ,  - -- U.S. ----, 1 11 S .C t. 1884 , 1 893, 11 4 L .Ed .2d  43 2(1991). W e firstlo ok  a twha t evi d ence pre se nte dtothe j u ry ten ded t o pr ov eo r d isprove th e pres um pt ionofin tent.  Id. Nex t, we w eigh thepro b ativ efo rce ofthat evidence  a gainst the  p rob ativef o rce of t he presumption standing alone.Id. 

12
The  evidence  sh owed H ern a ndez s hot an d kil le d a f ellow p at ron  o f a club i n Wic hita,  K ansa s. Thetwo had had priora lte rcations incl udi ng o n e  t woy ea r s p re v iou s l y when Hernande z had been  b e at en severel y  en ou gh to r equiremedic a l atten tion. The  two menar gued a t t he club th e nightof the mu r der.13 

Les s t han an  h our  afte r thea rgu ment,  Herna nd ez wen t toth e tablewhere the victim was si ttingand f ire d four sh ots athim. Twoshot s to the v ict im' s hea d a n d che st w e re  fa t al, t he o t her two,o ne  of w hi ch struck t h e vic tim i n t h e armandone of which graz e d the victim's  arm , wer e n o t. H er nandez was res tra in e d  by anot he r patron, P erez. Th ee viden ce was  uncle ar whet h e rH ernand ez w asrestraine d a ft e r onlytw os hots h ad b ee n fire d or a f tera l l four shots had  been f ired. The  bart en der/co- o wner  testified  he thought  onlyoneshothad bee nfiredpri or  to the on e  which hi t him  in the  a nkle , a pparen tlya f ter g razi ng  th e victim' s ar m .
1 4 

T est
 (1983));_(2) the_evidence against Hernandez was_significant; and_(3)_the jury_was_properly instructed that_the burden was_upon the state to_prove guilt, not_upon_Hernandez to prove his innocence and, therefore, "the improper instruction did not have meaningful_effect_on the_deliberations_of_the jury." District Court Memorandum_and Order at 2-3. We_examine these_holdings seriatim.

10

A defendant's assertion of self-defense does not_necessarily_admit intent to_commit murder. In Johnson, the Court held that in_presenting such a defense, "a defendant_may in some_cases_admit_that the act" was_intentional. 460 U.S. at 87, 103_S.Ct. at 977-78 (emphasis added). We_find no such admission here. Indeed, the_defense argued Hernandez did not intend_to kill the victim.

11

The district_court also_held that significant evidence of_intent was presented_at trial._In examining this_holding, we must "make a judgment_about the significance_of the presumption to reasonable jurors,_when_measured against the_other_evidence_considered by_those jurors independently_of_the presumption."_Yates_v. Evatt, --- U.S. ----, 111_S.Ct._1884, 1893, 114 L.Ed.2d 432 (1991). We_first look at what_evidence_presented to the jury_tended to prove or disprove_the presumption of intent. Id. Next,_we weigh_the probative_force of that evidence against the probative force of the presumption_standing alone. Id.

12

The evidence showed Hernandez_shot and killed a_fellow patron_of_a club in_Wichita,_Kansas. The_two had had prior altercations including one_two years_previously when Hernandez had been beaten_severely enough to require_medical_attention. The two men argued at_the club the night of the_murder.

13

Less than an hour after_the_argument,_Hernandez went to the table_where the victim was sitting and_fired four shots_at him. Two shots to the victim's_head_and chest were fatal, the other_two,_one of which struck the victim_in_the_arm and one of which_grazed the victim's arm, were not._Hernandez was restrained by another patron, Perez. The evidence_was unclear whether_Hernandez was restrained after only_two_shots_had been fired or after all four shots had been_fired. The_bartender/co-owner testified he_thought only one shot had been fired prior to the_one which hit him in the ankle,_apparently after grazing the victim's arm.

14

Test