holding that in criminal cases, there is no constitutional right to self-defense founded in the Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that a state may require a defendant to prove self-defense as an affirmative defense to obtain acquittal
Summary of this case from Rowe v. DeBruynNo. 86-926.
March 9, 1987.
C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 2d 697.
holding that in criminal cases, there is no constitutional right to self-defense founded in the Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that a state may require a defendant to prove self-defense as an affirmative defense to obtain acquittal
Summary of this case from Rowe v. DeBruynapplying the standard three-part test of the Supreme Court in ruling on the constitutionality of Police Department actions in regulating protests by Catholic homosexuals and counterdemonstrators in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral
Summary of this case from New Alliance Party v. DinkinsFull title:ELING ET AL. v. JONES, MINNESOTA CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER
Court:U.S.
Date published: Mar 9, 1987
Rhodes argues that, under Ohio law, an affirmative defense is a "confession and avoidance," State v. Curry,…
State v. Calderon(Emphasis sic.) State v. Jackson (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 284, 22 OBR 452, 455, 490 N.E.2d 893, 897,…