Commonwealth v. Serrbocco, N.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a state may not require a defendant to prove an affirmative defense that negates an element of the crime
• holding that “the Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the offense of which the defendant is charged”
• holding that the State need not “prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact, the existence or nonexistence of which it is willing to recognize as ... affecting ... the severity of the punishment”
• holding that the necessity of certain criminal procedures “is rooted in the fundamental fairness notion required by due process”
• holding that the New York statute assigning to the accused the burden of proving EED did not violate due process protections
• holding that “proof of the non-existence of all affirmative defenses has never been constitutionally required” and declining to apply such rule to defense of extreme emotional distress under New York law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).