Exam 2: Burden of Proof

In the case of State v. Eichelberger, the defendant had been convicted of two counts of trafficking in stolen property in the second degree because it believed that Eichelberger sold property that he should have known had been stolen. Under the circumstances of this case, why did the reviewing court determine that a reasonable jury could have found that the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

If the trial judge fails to instruct the jury about an essential element of the crime and fails to tell the jury that it must find that element beyond a reasonable doubt, must the conviction be reversed? Explain.

In some jurisdictions, courts have held that the issue of alibi is an affirmative defense, and when asserted, the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence rests with the defendant. What is meant by an alibi defense? Why do some states require that the defense give notice in advance to the prosecution that alibi witnesses are to be used at the trial?

If "specific intent" is an element of a crime:

Explain why the burden of going forward with the evidence may shift from the prosecution to the defense and may even shift back to the prosecution although the burden of proof never shifts from the prosecution.

Although the prosecution has the duty to prove all the elements of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the failure to clearly prove one element of a crime:

If the defendant introduces evidence of insanity, must the prosecution prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt? Discuss the various rules.

What type of cases may use the legal standard of clear and convincing evidence and preponderance of the evidence?

In a homicide case, if the accused pleads self-defense:

In the case of In re Winship, the United States Supreme Court decided that:

After the trier of fact renders a guilty verdict, can the reviewing court set aside a conviction if it finds that no rational trier of fact could logically have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Explain your answer.

The law regarding the alibi defense differs from state to state. If the defendant claims an alibi defense:

Assume that state law does not require trial courts to offer a jury instruction in any particular format that describes the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the trial court failed to offer any instructions to the jury that it must find guilt, if at all, by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and a conviction resulted, an appellate court should:

In some instances, the burden of proving affirmative defenses is placed on the defendant. In this situation, the degree of proof usually is:

In the case of Martin v. Ohio, the defendant was tried in state court for aggravated murder. What was the decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Ohio practice of placing on the defendant the burden of proving that she was acting in self-defense when she allegedly committed the murder? Do other states follow the same rule regarding the burden of proof when self-defense is claimed by the defendant?

In the case of Lindsey v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted of petty larceny in a Virginia criminal court. The prosecution benefited from an instruction to the jury that indicated that where a defendant concealed personal property while on the premises of a retail store was evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner of the merchandise. The defendant contended that this jury instruction placed the burden of proving lack of intent on the defendant that was contrary to constitutional interpretations of the burden of proof by the U.S. Supreme Court because it had the effect of reversing the burden of proof. The reviewing court held that:

If specific intent is an element of a crime, is it error for the judge to instruct the jury that "it is reasonable to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of an act knowingly done?" Explain.

In a criminal case, the state does not normally actively prosecute a case unless:

Define burden of proof, burden of going forward, and burden of persuasion.

If, in an assault case, the accused claims that he or she was not near the place where the alleged criminal act took place. Does the accused have the responsibility to prove that he or she was not at the scene? What degree of evidence is required?