Constitutional Law

A predictable split in Ohio

Story here. A bill is up that would shift the burden of proof in self defense cases so that the state has the burden. The governor supports it, and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association opposes.

Don't know if the bill draws a distinction between two types of burdens. (1) Burden of proof: one party must, at the end of trial, have proven something to whatever standard is required. That'd mean that if self defense is raised, the State must disprove it or lose (depending on how it is arranged, this might require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderence of the evidence). There's every reason to put that burden on the State. (2) Burden of going forward. One party or the other must bring in some evidence before the issue is in play. I can see opposing putting this burden on the State, and requiring the defendant to present some evidence to make it an issue. Otherwise -- two people in a room, one kills the other, and doesn't talk about it. The prosecution will likely fail (whether it really was self-defense or not) since the State has nothing to disprove self-defense, and bears the burden of doing that.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on May 27, 2008 (boomark / email).