480 U.S. 228 (1987)
On July 21, 1983, petitioner Earline Martin and her husband, Walter Martin, argued over grocery money.1 Petitioner claimed that her husband struck her in the head during the argument.2 Petitioner'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.3 Her husband saw something in her hand and questioned her about it.4 He came at her, and she lost her head and fired the gun at him.5 Five or six shots were fired, three of them striking and killing Mr. Martin.6
She was charged with and tried for aggravated murder.7 She pleaded self-defense and testified in her own defense.8 The judge charged the jury with respect to the elements of the crime and of self-defense and rejected petitioner's Due Process Clause challenge to the charge placing on her the burden of proving self-defense.9 The jury found her guilty.10
Both the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction.11 Both rejected the constitutional challenge to the instruction requiring petitioner to prove self-defense.12 The latter court, relying upon Patterson v. New York, concluded that the State was required to prove the three elements of aggravated murder but that Patterson did not require it to disprove self-defense.13 The court said, "the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant purposely, and with prior calculation and design, caused the death of her husband. Appellant did not dispute the existence of these elements, but rather sought to justify her actions on grounds she acted in self defense."14 The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 475 U.S. 1119 (1986).15
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids placing the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant when she is charged by the State of Ohio with committing the crime of aggravated murder?16
The Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.17 States may define the elements of crimes.18 They may allocate to the defendant the burden of proving affirmative defenses such as self-defense.19 This allocation is permitted so long as the prosecution bears the burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt in light of all the evidence.20
No. Ohio defined aggravated murder as purposely causing the death of another with prior calculation and design under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01 and required the prosecution to prove those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.21 Earline Martin did not dispute that the state had proved she purposely killed her husband with prior calculation and design.22 She instead raised self-defense, an affirmative defense under Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§ 2901.05(A) that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.23 The jury instructions directed the jury to consider all evidence, including Martin's self-defense evidence, when deciding whether the state had proved the crime elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury convicted after finding that evidence insufficient to create reasonable doubt on those elements.24
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid Ohio from requiring the defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence when charged with aggravated murder.25
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan And Marshall, And Justice Blackmun With Respect To Parts I And Iii
Justice Powell dissented.26 He maintained that Patterson v. New York permits burden-shifting only when the affirmative defense does not negate an element of the crime.27 Yet self-defense negates the prior calculation and design element because an honest belief in imminent danger is inconsistent with studied planning in advance.28 Powell argued that inconsistent instructions create an unacceptable risk that the jury will lower the prosecution's burden of proof.29
He would have applied the two-part test from his Patterson dissent under which self-defense substantially affects guilt or innocence and has deep historical roots, requiring the state to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.30 He concluded that the majority's deference to state definitions increases the risk of convicting a defendant who may not be blameworthy and would reverse the Ohio Supreme Court.31