Self-defense burden of proof?

That is true in a lot of states - I know there are a few states that make the prosecution prove that the act was not self-defense.

Ohio just changed to having the prosecution prove it wasn’t self defense this last March.

1 Like

Fortunately as self defense laws get more and more user friendly around the country this is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

There is something absolutely wrong both morally and constitutionally as far as I’m concerned when a man/woman can act in lawful self defense and still lose everything just trying to defend themselves in both civil and criminal actions.

I’m also hoping that we’ll see laws that disallow civil actions completely if the shooting was justified under the criminal statutes with or without an acquittal at trial.

FL I think has it about as right as it gets. You cannot even be arrested if the initial investigation supports your version of events and the claim of self defense and if the claim of self defense is upheld you cannot be sued. We’ve got something similar here in TX but it’s not as cut and dried.

1 Like

In KY, a self defense is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pled and D has burden of going forward, meaning some evidence of self defense must be presented unless the castle doctrine applies where there is a presumption. The Commonwealth then must present proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.