Printable Format21-5108. Burden of proof; defendant presumed innocent. (a) In all criminal proceedings, the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of a crime. This standard requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each required element of a crime.
(b) A defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. When there is a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more degrees of a crime the defendant is guilty, the defendant shall be convicted of the lowest degree only. When there is a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt, the defendant shall be found not guilty.
(c) A defendant is entitled to an instruction on every affirmative defense that is supported by competent evidence. Competent evidence is that which could allow a rational fact finder to reasonably conclude that the defense applies. Once the defendant satisfies the burden of producing such evidence, the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
(d) Issues raised under K.S.A. 21-5106, 21-5107 and 21-5110, and amendments thereto, are not affirmative defenses under subsection (c).
History: L. 2010, ch. 136, ยง 8; July 1, 2011.
Source or Prior Law:
21-3109.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Enactment of statute did not alter the law concerning the state's standard of proof and did not create a new element that the state must prove when charging a crime; self-defense remains a rebuttable defense to certain crimes. State v. Staten, 304 Kan. 957, 965-66, 377 P.3d 427 (2016).
2. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on every affirmative defense that is supported by competent evidence; a defendant may show that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have perceived the use of deadly force as necessary for self-defense with only the defendant's own testimony. State v. Qualls, 309 Kan. 553, 560, 439 P.3d 301 (2019).
3. A prosecutor's statement that the defendant's account was implausible did not shift the burden of proof. State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216, 222, 445 P.3d 726 (2019).
4. Using the terminology "no reasonable doubt" in jury instructions does not lower the state's burden of proof to a lesser standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" as there is no meaningful distinction between the terms. State v. Beasley, 64 Kan. App. 2d 203, 213, 547 P.3d 617 (2024).