## Facts

- Earline Martin shot and killed her husband, Walter C. Martin Sr., following an argument.
- The State charged Martin with aggravated murder under Ohio law, requiring proof that she purposely, and with prior calculation and design, caused another’s death.
- Martin asserted self-defense at trial.
- Ohio law classified self-defense as an affirmative defense and placed the burden on the defendant to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The jury convicted Martin, and she appealed, arguing that this burden allocation violated due process.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits Ohio to require a defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence while the prosecution must prove every element of aggravated murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether placing the burden of persuasion for self-defense on the defendant improperly requires the defendant to disprove an essential element of the charged homicide offense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction.
- The court upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s statutory scheme allocating burdens of proof.
- The court held that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all statutory elements of the offense, including mens rea.
- The court held that Ohio may require a defendant to prove the affirmative defense of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The State bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charged offense as defined by statute, including the required mental state.
- A state may assign the defendant the burden to prove an affirmative defense, including self-defense, by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as the State’s burden to prove the offense elements remains unchanged.
- Self-defense operates as a justification that excuses otherwise criminal conduct and need not be treated as an element the prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A statutory allocation that places the burden of persuasion on the defendant for an affirmative defense is not unconstitutional merely because evidence supporting the defense may also create doubt about the prosecution’s proof of mens rea.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Ohio’s requirement that a defendant prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate due process because it does not relieve the prosecution of proving every element of aggravated murder beyond a reasonable doubt.


State v. Martin, 21 Ohio St. 3d 91, 488 N.E.2d 166 (Ohio 1986)