State v. Martin

I

Our first consideration concerns appellant’s contention that the state of Ohio may not constitutionally place the burden of proving self-defense on a defendant if the truth of that defense would negate an essential ele*93ment of the crime charged. Appellant asserts that self-defense negates the mens rea of aggravated murder and that requiring a defendant to prove self-defense thus compels the defendant to prove his innocence by disproving criminal intent. Since it is constitutionally impermissible to require an accused to prove his innocence, appellant contends that once a defendant produces…