I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman.

[stranger81]

146. Let me try again to clarify for you:

(1) The state bears the burden of proving the elements of the crimes alleged against Z.

(2) Once the state has carried that burden (as evidenced by Judge Nelson's denial of Z's acquittal motion at the conclusion of the state's case), if the defendant is asserting an affirmative defense (like Z is, by pleading self-defense), the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove the elements of his affirmative defense.

(3) Assuming the defendant carries the burden of proving the elements of his affirmative defense, the burden of proof shifts back to the state to rebut that showing.

You are correct that the quantum of evidence required to carry the burden of proof is somewhat lower than the state's burden of proof, which requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is simply incorrect to say only the state bears a burden of proof where, as here, the defendant is relying on an affirmative defense.

**edited for typos**