Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
71. Did the trial court's instruction violate the defendant's federal constitutional rights?
The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted in self-defense. The defendant objected, arguing that this instruction violated the constitutional requirement that the prosecution prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
A defendant was charged with and tried for murder. At trial, the defendant testified that he had acted in self-defense.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is correct. The defendant here has raised self-defense, which is an affirmative defense. Due process allows the state to impose the burden on the defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. As a result, the trial court did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the trial court acted properly, it is because due process allows the state to impose a burden on a defendant to prove an affirmative defense, including self-defense, by a preponderance of the evidence. Due process still requires that the prosecution prove that the defendant is guilty of each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
C is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the law; due process does, in fact, allow the state to place the evidentiary burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence upon a defendant. This includes self-defense, which the defendant raised in this case.
D is incorrect. This is also a misstatement of the law; due process allows for defendants to bear the burden of proving a justification defense, (meaning a person was justified or lawfully used force), including self-defense. As stated, it does not violate due process to shift the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence to a defendant.