## Facts

- Solomon Hanton and the victim were driving in Bellevue, Washington, when Hanton cut off the victim’s car, prompting the victim to follow closely.
- At the next stoplight, the victim exited his vehicle, opened Hanton’s car door, and attempted to pull Hanton out.
- Hanton drew a pistol and shot the victim; the victim died several days later from the wound.
- The State charged Hanton with first-degree manslaughter while armed with a deadly weapon.
- At trial, Hanton’s principal theory was self-defense.
- Hanton requested a jury instruction stating that once self-defense is raised, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the lack of self-defense.
- The trial court gave an instruction stating the defendant had a burden to “produce some evidence” of self-defense but omitted an explicit statement that the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Issues

1. Whether a self-defense instruction that describes the defendant’s burden to produce “some evidence,” but does not expressly state the State must prove absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, improperly shifts or obscures the burden of proof in violation of due process.
2. Whether the omission was cured by other instructions such that any error was harmless.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the self-defense instruction was constitutionally defective because it could mislead jurors into believing the defendant bore a burden of persuasion on self-defense.
- The court concluded the defect was not cured by the instructions considered as a whole.
- Because self-defense negates unlawfulness and affects the State’s proof obligations, the instructional error required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- In Washington, a defendant raising self-defense bears only a burden of production: introducing some evidence tending to show self-defense.
- Once self-defense is in issue, the State bears the burden of persuasion to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
- Jury instructions on self-defense must clearly and explicitly inform the jury that the State must prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- An instruction that references only the defendant’s burden to produce evidence, without clarifying the State’s ultimate burden, creates an unconstitutional risk of burden-shifting and warrants reversal when the issue is central to the case.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the self-defense instruction’s omission of an explicit statement that the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt created a substantial risk that the jury would misallocate the burden of proof on a justification that negates unlawfulness.


State v. Hanton, 94 Wn.2d 129, 614 P.2d 1280 (Wash. 1980)