In the Case of Martin V

In the case of Martin v. Ohio, the defendant was tried in state court for aggravated murder. At the trial, the defendant admitted that she had killed her husband but claimed that she acted in self-defense. After the evidence was presented, the court instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the "affirmative defense" of self-defense. The United States Supreme Court held that:

A) it is not unconstitutional to require the defendant to prove the affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
B) it was not a violation of the due process clause to place the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant.
C) as the majority of the states now assume the burden of disproving affirmative defenses, requiring the defendant to prove self-defense violated the Constitution.
D) the Ohio law placing the burden on the defendant to prove that she was acting in self-defense in effect relieves the prosecution of proving one element of the crime and is therefore unconstitutional.