# What are the obligations of the defendant if he claims self-defense? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 1, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-obligations-of-the-defendant-if-he-claims-self-defense/424824 "2007-11-01T02:58:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-obligations-of-the-defendant-if-he-claims-self-defense/424824/1 "2007-11-01T02:58:09Z")
If I am charged with murder and I say I was acting in self-defense, what are my obligations in defending myself? Do I have the burden to prove that things went down the way I say they did? For the record, I live in Austin, Texas. Thanks, Rob ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-obligations-of-the-defendant-if-he-claims-self-defense/424824/2 "2007-11-01T03:27:28Z")
> **[Affirmative defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense)** > > An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro... ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-obligations-of-the-defendant-if-he-claims-self-defense/424824/3 "2007-11-01T13:36:36Z")
Interesting: why isn’t it up to the prosecutor to show that it was not self-defence? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-obligations-of-the-defendant-if-he-claims-self-defense/424824/4 "2007-11-01T13:49:26Z")
> [@](#): > > at common law the burden of proving. . . “all . . . circumstances of justification, excuse or alleviation” - rested on the defendant. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries \*201; M. Foster, Crown Law 255 (1762); Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, at 693-694. 7 This was the rule when the Fifth Amendment was adopted, and it was the American rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Commonwealth v. York, 50 Mass. 93 (1845). [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=432&page=202#202](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=432&page=202#202) > [@](#): > > Indeed, well into this century, a number of States followed the common-law rule and required a defendant to shoulder the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense. Fletcher, Two Kinds of Legal Rules: A Comparative Study of Burden-of-Persuasion Practices in Criminal Cases, 77 Yale [480 U.S. 228, 236] L. J. 880, 882, and n. 10 (1968). We are aware that **all but two of the States, Ohio and South Carolina, have abandoned the common-law rule and require the prosecution to prove the absence of self-defense when it is properly raised by the defendant.** But the question remains whether those States are in violation of the Constitution; and, as we observed in Patterson, that question is not answered by cataloging the practices of other States. We are no more convinced that the Ohio practice of requiring self-defense to be proved by the defendant is unconstitutional than we are that the Constitution requires the prosecution to prove the sanity of a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=480&invol=228](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=480&invol=228) (emphasis added.) So there’s no constitutional obstacle to state’s requiring a defendant to prove self-defense, but most states require the prosecution to disprove it.