context: The Supreme Court has held that a state may place the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant, but only where such placement does not shift the prosecution's burden on any element of the crime. But because the law of the Virgin Islands specifically includes "unlawfulness" as an element of the crime of murder and provides that killing in self-defense is "lawful," shifting the burden of proof on this question implicates Smith's due process rights.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 480 U.S. 235, 235
citation_a.parenthetical: reading Martin to permit states to require the defendant to prove self-defense even where an element of the crime implies the absence of self-defense
citation_a.sentence: But see Smart v. Leeke, 873 F.2d 1558 (4th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (reading Martin to permit states to require the defendant to prove self-defense even where an element of the crime implies the absence of self-defense). In Martin, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that because under Ohio law any murder must be unlawful, a valid claim of self-defense would negate an element of the crime. 480 U.S. at 235. However, the Court specifically relied on state court interpretations of Ohio law, which did not include the absence of self-defense in the definition of unlawfulness. Id.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 632 F.2d 605, 619-36
citation_b.parenthetical: because Georgia defines voluntary manslaughter to include element of unlawfulness, jury instructions which required the defendant to prove self-defense contravened due process
citation_b.sentence: See Holloway v. McElroy, 632 F.2d 605, 619-36 (5th Cir. 1980) (because Georgia defines voluntary manslaughter to include element of unlawfulness, jury instructions which required the defendant to prove self-defense contravened due process), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1028 (1981).