SchulteTFSession6WorksheetBurdenofProofandDefensesSelfDefenseNecessity

CRIMINAL LAW TF SESSION: Monday, 03.20.2022 COURSE ROADMAP: Theory Statutory Interpretation  Argument Structure  Principles of Legality  Formalism & Realism Criminal Law Theory  Punishment  Criminalizati on Offenses Generally Actus Reus  Voluntariness  Omission s Mens Rea  General Issues  Strict Liability  Mistak e Causation Burden of Proof  Prosecution's Burden of Proof Defenses Generally  Defendant's Burden of Proof  Justifications o Self-Defense o Necessity SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW: Burden of Proof burden of proof → refers to which side of the "v" must prove the elements asserted standard of proof → refers to the standard by which each element must be proved  for prosecution → always "beyond a reasonable doubt" o In re Winship → standard for each element of the offense  for defense → depends on the jurisdiction o "preponderance of the evidence" or o "clear and convincing evidence" Prosecution's Burden of Proof  In re Winship → must prove each element of the offense Owens v. State - circumstantial evidence of driving while intoxicated Defendant's Burden of Proof  applies only for affirmative defenses  standard of proof depends on the jurisdiction Affirmative Defenses  depending on the jurisdiction: o burden of proof is fully on the defendant; or ■ standard = clear and convincing evidence (around 70% certainty); or ■ preponderance of the evidence (around 50% certainty) 1

o burden of proof is divided into: ■ burden of production → on the defendant  must show "some evidence" ■ burden of persuasion → prosecution must prove the negative of the affirmative defense (on rebuttal)  standard = beyond a reasonable doubt  "burden shifting" → an important constitutional principle o Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975) ■ where an affirmative defense is included within the statutory language of the offense, it is unconstitutional to shift the burden to the defendant  context: the defense of "heat of passion on sudden provocation" was contemplated by the statutory language o Patterson v. New York (1977) ■ where an affirmative defense is not an element of the offense charged, it is permissible to shift the burden to the defendant  context: malice aforethought was not an element of second-degree murder Justifications  rationale: although we generally don't want people to commit this offense, society would condone defendant's conduct under these particular circumstances o justification extends to accomplices Self-Defense:  there is an actual or apparent threat;  the threat is unlawful;  the threat is immediate;  the defendant must believe that: o they are in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm; and o force was the only way to prevent the death or serious bodily harm potential negative defenses to this affirmative defense:  precipitation/provocation exception o prevents an aggressor from being able to avail themselves of the defense o negates the last element of self-defense  duty to withdraw/retreat o arises only where there is an opportunity to retreat safely o negates the last element of self-defense o counterargument → the castle doctrine ■ there is no duty to retreat in one's own home United States v. Peterson - windshield wiper case court did not reach the issue of the castle doctrine because the defendant was the aggressor, and therefore self- defense was not proven evaluating self-defense: objective vs. subjective perspective  courts must apply the objective standard: o defendant's belief must be objectively reasonable People v. Goetz - subway vigilante statute governing the use of force in self-defense required the defendant to "reasonably believe" that (1) the threat was imminent; and (2) use of force was necessary