Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Shifting The Burden Of Proving Self-Defense - With Analysis Of Related Ohio Law, Randy R. Koenders
Shifting The Burden Of Proving Self-Defense - With Analysis Of Related Ohio Law, Randy R. Koenders
Akron Law Review
Senate Bill Number 42 was introduced into the Ohio General Assembly on February 1, 1977. The bill provides that while the burden of proof for all elements of the criminal offense with which an individual is charged rests upon the prosecution, the burden of proof for affirmative defenses rests upon the defendant, and he must prove his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the bill raises serious questions concerning placing the burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defenses generally, and self-defense in particular, on the defendant, a study of the law and policy involved in shifting …
Affirmative Defenses; Defendant's Burden Of Proof: Defense Of Extreme Emotional Disturbance; Due Process; Patteron V. New York, Lee Ann Johnson
Affirmative Defenses; Defendant's Burden Of Proof: Defense Of Extreme Emotional Disturbance; Due Process; Patteron V. New York, Lee Ann Johnson
Akron Law Review
The United States Supreme Court in Patterson v. New York upheld the constitutionality of a New York murder statute which places on the defendant the burden of proving extreme emotional disturbance. The Court thereby determined that New York courts in applying the statute against defendant Gordon Patterson had not violated his right to due process of law