MARTIN V. OHIO
480 U.S. 228 (1987)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a conviction for murder where the state
placed the burden for proving self-defense on Martin (D).
FACTS: Earline Martin (D) and her husband, Walter argued over grocery money. D claimed
that her husband struck her in the head during the argument. D's version of what then
transpired was that she went upstairs, put on a robe, and later came back down with her
husband's gun which she intended to dispose of. Her husband saw something in her hand and
questioned her about it. He came at her, and she lost her head and fired the gun at him.
Five or six shots were fired, three of them striking and killing Mr. Martin. D was charged
with and tried for aggravated murder. D pleaded self-defense and testified in her own
defense. The judge charged the jury with respect to the elements of the crime and of
self-defense and rejected Dr's Due Process Clause challenge to the charge placing on her the
burden of proving self-defense. The jury found her guilty. The Ohio Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction. Both rejected the constitutional challenge to
the instruction requiring petitioner to prove self-defense. It concluded that P was required
to prove the three elements of aggravated murder but P did not have to disprove
self-defense, which is a separate issue that did not require D to disprove any element of
the offense with which she was charged. P proved beyond a reasonable doubt that D purposely,
and with prior calculation and design, caused the death of her husband. The Supreme Court
granted certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment