Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?
|
Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is
initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a
prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it
beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.
Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant
because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (
or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant.
Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]
Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate
beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.