This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Burdens of Proof Burden of Production burden to produce evidence or raise a o Prosecution must produce evidence as to elements of the crime BRD. If it does not meet this burden, the is entitled to acquittal. o Defense must produce evidence to raise an affirmative defense (may be scintilla, enough to raise a RD, preponderance). If not met jury may not be instructed as to . Burden of Persuasion once burden of production is met issues are before a jury for consideration. Where there is any risk of imprisonment for a significant amount of time right to jury trial. o Prosecution burden is always on the prosecution to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt In Re Winship o Defense burden may be on to prove affirmative w/o violating due process The affirm allocated to the may not be an element of the crime If the statute defines the crime in terms of an element that might otherwise be an affirm. it may not allocate the burden to Mullaney (e.g., statute defines murder as not in heat of passion may not allocate burden to prove HOP; otherwise, it may) o The distinction between justification and excuse is useful in accomplice liability and in deciding who should bear a burden of proof on certain . For justifications it makes sense that the state should bear the burden of proof because they must prove BRD that a wrongful act was committed. If the carried the burden, she might be convicted, even though her act was not wrongful, on a lesser showing. For Excuses the wrongful act has already been proved. Proof of Guilt at Trial Owens v. State Two equally valid inferences could prima facie be drawn: that he was about to drive but had not yet (innocent) OR that he had just concluded driving (guilty). Convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone cannot be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent w/ any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. On closer look the court found that it was unreasonable to conclude that he was about to drive. Both parties must agree to a bench trial because there is no C right to one. Often used if has a criminal record and must testify (difficult for a jury to look past this during testimony). Downside is that there are no instructions to attack on appeal so hard to claim that law was misapplied. At the close of the States case the may make a motion for a DV of acquittal (half-time motion), asserting the C presumption of innocence and that the prosecution has failed to overcome that presumption. If the motion is denied, it may be made again at the close of and before closing arguments....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/12/2008 for the course LAW 5503 taught by Professor Pizzi during the Spring '06 term at Colorado.
- Spring '06