Nope. Sorry. I don't want to make it easier for the state when it comes to criminal prosecution

[onenote]

79. based on a real world example

Victim and defendant, both residents of a rural community, have a history of bad blood and violent encounters. Defendant claims that he and victim were driving down the same rural road (with the victim's truck in front of defendant's truck) when the victim stopped his vehicle and backed it up blocking the defendant from going forward. The defendant claims the victim pulled out a gun at which point the defendant grabbed a rifle that was in his truck and shot and killed the victim. A loaded weapon is found under the body of the victim. There are no witnesses.

The state disputes the defendant's version, arguing that the defendant set about to ambush the victim, following him and forcing him to stop. The state claims that the defendant drew his weapon first and waited until the victim pulled his gun in response and then shot him.

If the burden is on the defendant to prove that his version is more likely the truth than the state's, the defendant probably is convicted because at best its a tie -- both stories appear equally plausible.

If the burden is on the state, the defendant likely goes free because a jury probably would find that there is reasonable doubt as to the state's version of what happened.

Which would be a better result?