Moran v. Ohio

Background

Petitioner, an Ohio woman, was tried and convicted of murdering her husband after she shot him in a camper following repeated beatings and threats. At trial she said she acted in self-defense and presented evidence of long history of physical abuse and a final threat that he would "blow [her] damn brains out." The jury was told that she bore the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court overruled her timely objection, the jury convicted her of aggravated murder, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as presenting no substantial constitutional question.

Reasoning

The narrow question raised is whether it violates the Fourteenth Amendment to require a defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance rather than require the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Brennan's dissent argues that prior decisions like Winship and Mullaney support the view that the State must prove every fact necessary for conviction, and that self-defense may negate elements such as intent and voluntariness. Brennan notes Ohio law and cases place the preponderance burden on defendants for affirmative defenses, and he contends this allocation raises substantial constitutional doubts.

Real world impact

By denying review, the Court left the conviction and Ohio's practice intact. That outcome keeps in place an instructional rule that can make it harder for abused defendants to avoid murder convictions when juries must treat self-defense as the defendant's burden. Because the case involved battered-woman evidence and the possibility of life imprisonment, the allocation of proof can be decisive in close cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from denial of review and urged the Court to decide the constitutional question, calling the claim "colorable" and "plausible" and noting lower courts are divided.