IOW it has to be placed at issue by trial evidence. The defendant has to provide actual evidence that he has that defense. Once he establishes evidence supporting the defence, the burden shifts to the prosecution and becomes "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The prosecution does not need to disprove all affirmative defenses, only the one's supported by the defendant with admissible evidence.
It is obvious from the comments that most posters, if any, did not click on the link and read it.
The post that started all of this was posted as a copy of New York State Law. So calling it BS is in fact BS.
I call everyone's attention to the name Mike Nifong.
Mike Nifong was and is not the only “Mike Nifong””. At the same time he was ruining the college life of his victims, there were two other Prosecutors in NC, almost two hundred miles apart, guilty of the same tactics in court.
So from what I have learned as a long time concealed carrier, all prosecuting attorneys do not prosecute with the same vigor. They read the law and read into it their own understanding of right and wrong....and political ambition helps them in their reading.
So what I believe is that if you are unfortunate enough to be prosecuted by a Nyfong, you will be forced to prove all of the points made in the original post, so in that sense you will be required to prove enough of those points to make an effective defense.
So all of the positions taken here are interesting. It reminds me of the heated arguments over which came first...the chicken or the egg.
“and becomes “beyond a reasonable doubt.””
That is what I posted via the statute in response to your post that it was NOT the criteria for burden of proof.