| Court: | US Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Mrs. Martin kills Mr. Martin, who had acted in a threatening manner. She claims self-defense. |
| Posture: | Convicted at trial (aggravated murder). She objects to the jury instruction shifting the burden of proving self-defense onto her. Upheld in the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court. |
| Issue: | Does the 14th Amendment forbid placing the burden of proving self-defense onto the defendant? |
| Holding: | Affirmed. The Winship just says that the state has to prove the elements of the crime, and that didn't change here. |
| Rule: | As shown in Patterson, it is OK for defendants to be required to prove self-defense. |
| Reasoning: | There are two ways the jury could have acquitted: if they felt the state hadn't proved the elements of the crime, or if they felt that the defendant had persuaded them that self-defense was proper. |
| Dicta: | It's not as though the jury was instructed that they couldn't consider
self-defense in determining whether there was doubt about the
state's case. Also, there are only two states that handle self-defense
this way, but Patterson still controls this issue.
Dissent: This sort of burden shifting is said to be OK because it doesn't place on the defendant the burden of disproving any of the elements of the crime. But if it DOES involve an element of the crime, it should not be OK, and the state, under Winship should be required to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. When we have inconsistent jury instructions, there's risk that the jury will resolve them improperly. |