Ingram: Companion site for Criminal Evidence, 11th Edition


Case Studies

Chapter 03: Burden of Proof

Overview — Based on: State v. Soto, 262 P.3d 670, 2011 Haw. App. LEXIS 1174 (2011).

At the time that this criminal case arose, the alleged victim, Chasare Soto, was the girlfriend of Nicholas Soto; Crystal was Nicholas’s ex-wife; and Chris Orozco was Crystal’s current boyfriend. Nicholas and Crystal had been in a in a legal battle concerning custody of their two children. The harassment charge arose out of an altercation in which Nicholas and Chasare went to Crystal’s residence to pick-up the children for visitation. At this point, Nicholas got into a dispute with Crystal over whether Nicholas would be allowed to take the children, in which both Chris and Chasare also became involved. At some point, Chasare aggressively ran toward Crystal. At this point, Crystal put her arm up vertically to fend off bodily contact initiated by Chasare and made contact with Chasare’s chest. In Hawai’i, the crime of harassment exists where a person, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other person, strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches another person in an offensive manner or subjects the other person to offensive physical contact.

Chasare claimed to be the victim, although she could have been labeled as the aggressor. Crystal Soto testified that she felt the need to protect herself from the aggression of Chasare and put her hand and arm up in a defense position. The trial court stated, “The defense that is raised to the touching is that of self-defense. The defendant has the burden to establish that and has failed to do that.”

Under the Hawai’i Penal Code, the justification defense of self-defense or the use of force in self-protection is not an affirmative defense. Thus, once a defendant puts forth credible evidence to support the defense, it became the prosecution’s burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, on appeal, Crystal contended that she had introduced sufficient evidence to raise a claim of self-defense that the judge did not require the prosecution to negate. Crystal demanded a new trial.

Questions

  1. In most jurisdictions, since a claim of self-defense is considered an affirmative defense, is the burden of proving that defense normally placed on the defendant who asserts the defense?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. Although a defendant generally has no burden of proof concerning anything in a criminal case, when a defendant asserts an affirmative defense, because the defendant is in the position of having access to most of the evidence concerning the defense, most jurisdictions place the burden of proving an affirmative defense upon the defendant. Some jurisdictions, although in the minority, require that the defendant raise the affirmative defense issue by introducing proof of an affirmative defense, and once that issue has been raised, the burden of disproving that defense rests with the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jurisdictions would require that the prosecution negate the affirmative defense only by a preponderance of evidence. See Chapter 3, Section 3.12.

  2. In a jurisdiction where self-defense is not deemed to be an affirmative defense, and when the defendant has introduced some evidence in support of self-defense, does the burden of disproving self-defense rest with the prosecution?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. The defendant claimed self-defense and introduced some evidence that helped support her claim. Because the District Court indicated that it did not believe that the defendant had proven self-defense, such comment indicated that the trial court believed that the defendant had a burden of proof concerning self-defense. The District Court’s decision had the effect of shifting the burden of proof on self-defense to the defendant, contrary to Hawai’i law. The conviction had to be reversed and the case set for a new trial. See Chapter 3, Section 3.9.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.