In re Winship

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=In re Winship

|ArgueDate=January 20

|ArgueYear=1970

|DecideDate=March 31

|DecideYear=1970

|FullName=In the Matter of Samuel Winship, Appellant

|USVol=397

|USPage=358

|ParallelCitations=90 S. Ct. 1068; 25 L. Ed. 2d 368; 51 O.O.2d 323; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 56

|Prior=91 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (App. Div. 1968), aff'd, 247 N.E.2d 253 (N.Y. 1969).

|Subsequent=

|Holding=The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires that every element of a criminal offense be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of the preponderance of the evidence standard used heretofore in juvenile court.

|Majority=Brennan

|JoinMajority=Douglas, Harlan, White, Marshall

|Concurrence=Harlan

|Dissent=Burger

|JoinDissent=Stewart

|Dissent2=Black

|LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. XIV

}}

{{wikisource}}

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged."Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, {{ISBN|978-1-4548-0698-1}}, [https://law.stanford.edu/publications/criminal-law-cases-and-materials-7th-edition/]{{rp|17}} It established this burden in all cases in all states (constitutional case).{{rp|17}}

In an opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court held that when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence.Varat, J.D. et al. Constitutional Law Cases and Materials, Concise Thirteenth Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2009, p. 356 The case has come to stand for a broader proposition, however: in a criminal prosecution, every essential element of the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993).Varat, p. 357 This case marked a rejection of the preponderance of evidence standard in any criminal cases and expanded the protections afforded by the Due Process Clause.{{Cite web|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3902&context=mlr|title=The Restoration of In re Winship: A Comment on Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases After Patterson v. New York|website=Michigan Law Review|date=2022-01-26}}