Martin v. Ohio

Martin v. Ohio
Argued December 2, 1986
Decided February 25, 1987
Full case nameEarline Martin, Petitioner v. Ohio
Docket no.85-6461
Citations480 U.S. 228 (more)
107 S. Ct. 1098; 94 L. Ed. 2d 267; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 933
Holding
Neither Ohio law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by shifting to petitioner the State's burden of proving the elements of the crime.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia
DissentPowell, joined by Brennan, Marshall (in full); Blackmun (as to Parts I and III)

Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), is a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence requiring prosecution to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to elements of the offense, and does not extend to the defense of justification, whereby states could legislate a burden on the defense to prove justification.[1]: 18  The decision was split 5–4.[1]: 18  The decision does not preclude states from requiring such a burden on the prosecution in their laws.[1]: 18 

  1. ^ a b c Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1]