Martin v. Ohio

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Criminal Law

480 U.S. 228 (1987)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawburden of proofself-defenseDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentburden shiftingaffirmative defensereasonable doubt

Facts

Ohio law places the burden of proving an affirmative defense on the accused by a preponderance of the evidence, and Ohio treats self-defense as an affirmative defense. Martin was charged with aggravated murder for shooting and killing her husband after an argument; she testified that he had struck her, that she later came downstairs with his gun intending to dispose of it, and that when he came at her she lost her head and fired. The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of aggravated murder and on self-defense, including that Martin had to prove self-defense. The jury found her guilty.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid Ohio from placing on a defendant the burden of proving self-defense when the defendant is charged with aggravated murder, if the State still bears the burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt?

Rule

Due process is satisfied when the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. A State may require a defendant to prove an affirmative defense such as self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, provided the State does not shift to the defendant the burden of disproving any element of the offense and the jury is permitted to consider all the evidence, including self-defense evidence, in deciding whether the State has proved the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Dana Ruiz is tried for murder under a statute defining the offense as intentionally causing another person's death. Ohio law classifies self-defense as an affirmative defense and requires Dana to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, while the jury is also instructed that the prosecution must prove intent and causation beyond a reasonable doubt based on all the evidence.

If Dana argues that due process is violated solely because she, rather than the State, bears the burden of proving self-defense, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that due process requires the State to prove every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does not forbid a State from placing on the defendant the burden to prove self-defense by a preponderance. That allocation is constitutional if the burden on the elements remains with the prosecution and the jury can consider all evidence, including self-defense evidence, in deciding whether the State met its burden.