Which statement correctly describes the burden of proof for ordinary defenses?

• A. Ordinary defenses must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• B. Ordinary defenses must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
• C. Ordinary defenses must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
• D. Ordinary defenses require no burden of proof.

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is that in a criminal case, the defendant’s ordinary defenses don’t lower the level of certainty required to convict. The trial must reach a unanimous conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt about each element of the crime. When an ordinary defense is raised—such as a claim that an element wasn’t met or that the defendant’s conduct was justified—the defense must persuade the jurors by evidence to meet that same high standard. If the defense proves its point beyond a reasonable doubt, the result is acquittal; if not, the State’s proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt stands.

Lower standards like a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence would erode the constitutional protection that a defendant is entitled to a high level of certainty before convicting. And saying there’s no burden at all would ignore the fundamental requirement that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt must be shown to convict.