Nova
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 19,648
- Reaction score
- 4,629
minor4th, I notice the "self defense" statute you quoted on the previous page restates the prosecution's burden but says nothing about the defendant's burden of proof in asserting an affirmative defense.
Surely it isn't enough to merely say "self-defense" and then dare the DA to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt!
I am asking because I was a juror on a self-defense murder case in the 90s and (this is in California) we received complicated instructions on the defendants' burden in asserting such a defense. I realize that technically the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution, but the instructions we received regarding an affirmative defense seemed to come pretty close. Is that just a California thing? (If you know, of course. If this is an obscure question, I don't expect you to do research.)
(In case anyone wants a juror's point of view, the self-defense statutes were like a rabbit-hole into which we fell during deliberations. We were out for a week, but the defendant was eventually convicted.)
Surely it isn't enough to merely say "self-defense" and then dare the DA to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt!
I am asking because I was a juror on a self-defense murder case in the 90s and (this is in California) we received complicated instructions on the defendants' burden in asserting such a defense. I realize that technically the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution, but the instructions we received regarding an affirmative defense seemed to come pretty close. Is that just a California thing? (If you know, of course. If this is an obscure question, I don't expect you to do research.)
(In case anyone wants a juror's point of view, the self-defense statutes were like a rabbit-hole into which we fell during deliberations. We were out for a week, but the defendant was eventually convicted.)