| Court: | US Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Patterson shoots his estranged wife's boyfried, and wants to defend himself against a second-degree murder charge by arguing the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. |
| Posture: | Found guilty at trial. Affirmed on appeal. While the appeal was pending Mullaney v. Wilbur was decided. Patterson argued on appeal that the burden-shifting in the NY statute was analogous to the one struck down in Mullaney and that therefore the conviction should be reversed. Appeals court declines to be persuaded, so we have the appeal to the US Supreme Court. |
| Issue: | Does requiring the defendant to persuade on an affirmative defense deprive the defendant of due process? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | It's only a violation if it "offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. |
| Reasoning: | We can't require the state to rebut all possible affirmative defenses. The state still has to prove all elements of the crime in question. This is different from Mullaney because nothing is presumed or implied about Patterson. |
| Dicta: | Dissent: this is a formalistic, not a substantive distinction. |