What is the prosecution's burden to prove justification and excuse?

"[T]he prosecution must prove every element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has no burden of proof or persuasion, even as to his defenses. [Citations.] However, once the prosecution has submitted proof that permits a finding beyond [a] reasonable doubt on every element of a charge, the accused may obviously be obliged to respond with evidence that 'raises' or permits a reasonable doubt that he is guilty as charged." (People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1214-1215, italics omitted, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 694.) Thus, "[i]n one sense, justification and excuse are affirmative

Page 21

defenses, in that the defendant has the burden of raising them. In another sense, however, their absence is an element of the crime, in that, provided there is at least some evidence of justification or excuse, the People bear the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue. [Citations.] Thus, lack of justification or excuse has been called 'a negative rather than an affirmative element' of the crime." (People v. Curtis (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1353.) In other words, it is the prosecution's burden to prove the killing was unlawful and not justified.