The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:
But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a ‚��burden¬ of proof‚�� identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense¬ beyond a reasonable doubt?¬ Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true?¬ The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense¬ beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/a...-self-defense/
Make my funk the Pfunk, don't won't my funk stepped on.People of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.If you think Education is Expensive try Ignorance.Its weak too speak and blame somebody else when you destroy yourself.