Opinion ID: 832062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Self-Defense Burden of Proof

Text: Bailey avers that the trial court's instructions lowered the prosecution's burden of disproving self defense and defense of another because the court repeatedly referred to self-defense as a limited defense and failed to specifically instruct the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of proving that Bailey and Lambeth did not act in self-defense. The trial court's instructions regarding the prosecutor's burden of disproving self-defense appear in the following excerpt: The first thing you have to keep in mind is that the lack of justification has to be proven here. The defendant doesn't have to prove justification. The evidence has to establish the lack of justification. Now, that's an awkward way of saying things. It is talking about proving a negative, which is technically correct, but hard to talk about. Let's turn it around and talk about it positively. Since it has got to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just like you contributed to the murder, that a person did not kill with justification, I'm going to state it this way: If there is a realistic possibility, based upon the evidence presented here, that one or both of the defendants acted in either self-defense or defense of another person, then we don't have a murder, if there was a realistic possibility. If, on the other hand, it's not a realistic possibility, no possibility at all, or even just a mere possibility, just a possibility, not a realistic possibility, then murder is back on the table, because then the thing which would eliminate it; justification, doesn't exist. We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury regarding the applicable burden of proof. The trial court's instruction that [t]he defendant doesn't have to prove justification is correct. Had the trial court followed this statement with language similar to that contained in CJI2d 7.20, the jury would have been more completely and properly instructed. Instead, the trial court continued, The evidence has to establish the lack of justification. Now, that's an awkward way of saying things. It is talking about proving a negative, which is technically correct, but hard to talk about. During the trial court's ensuing effort to clarify the law, the court entirely neglected to inform the jurors that the prosecutor bore the burden to disprove Bailey's and Lambeth's self-defense claims. [ People v. Bailey, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals (on reconsideration), issued May 21, 2009 (Docket No. 278411), 2009 WL 1439037.] YOUNG, J. (dissenting). I dissent from the order in this case and instead would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. The jury instructions properly set forth the correct standards for self-defense and provocation, and I would affirm the defendant's convictions on that basis. Defendant shot and killed Keith Hoffman, a local drug dealer who had recently stolen money and jewelry from defendant. At issue during trial was whether defendant acted in self-defense. After a jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder and felony-firearm, defendant appealed, claiming that his jury instructions were constitutionally deficient. The Court of Appeals agreed that the jury instructions were erroneous, but concluded that any error was harmless because it f[ound] it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have rendered the same verdict. [1] The challenged instructions, when considered in their entirety, [2] are not erroneous. The Court of Appeals determined that the jury instructions failed on two grounds: in providing erroneous instructions on provocation as negating self-defense and in lowering the prosecution's burden of proof on self defense. I will consider each of these claims of error seriatim.