Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Gordon Patterson, Jr. (Defendant), killed the paramour of his estranged wife by shooting him twice in the head. The Defendant admitted to the killing, but raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, which he had the burden of proving at trial. The jury found him guilty of murder.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Burdening a defendant with proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution’s (Constitution) Due Process Clause.
Issue. Does burdening the Defendant with proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution?
Held. No. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires that the prosecution prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, which the State did here. To require the prosecution to then disprove the non-existence of all mitigating circumstances would be “too cumbersome, too expensive, and too inaccurate.” Therefore, since nothing was presumed or implied against the Defendant and the prosecution proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution is not violated in making the Defendant prove his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
Mullaney's holding, it is argued, is that the State may not permit the blameworthiness of an act or the severity of punishment authorized for its commission to depend on the presence or absence of an identified fact without assuming the burden of proving the presence or absence of that fact, as the case may be, beyond a reasonable doubt.View Full Point of Law