BURDEN OF PROOF. The duty of prov ing the facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause. See People v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 66, 69 Am. Dec. 642; Ex parte Walls, 64 Ind. 461; Wilder v. Cowles, 100 Mass. 487.
Burden of proof is to be distinguished from prima facie evidence or a prima facie case. Generally, when the latter is shown, the duty imposed upon the party having the burden will be satisfied ; but it is not necessarily so ; Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 364; Tourtellot v. Rosebrook, 11 Meta (Mass.) 460; Swallow v. State, 22 Ala. 20; Doty v. State, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 427; Com. v. McKie, 1 Gray (Mass.) 61, 61 Am. Dec. 410.
The burden of proof lies upon him who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue ; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 74; 3 M. & W. 510; but where the plaintiff grounds his case on negative allegations, C. has the burden ; 1 C. & P. 220; 5 B. & C. 758; 1 Greenl. Ey. § 81; Daugherty v. Deardorf, 107 Ind. 527, 8 N. E. 296. Asa general rule the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the facts alleged as the cause of action; Read v. Buffum, 79 Cal. 77, 21 Pac. 555, 12 Am. St. Rep. 131; Stoddard v. Rowe, 74 Ia. 670, 39 N. W. 84; Woolsey v. Jones, 84 Ala. 88, 4 South. 190; Brimberry v. R. Co., 78
Ga. 641, 3 S. E. 274; but in certain forms of action the burden may by the pleadings be shifted to the defendant.
In criminal cases, on .the twofold ground that a prosecutor must prove every fact necessary to substantiate his charge against a prisoner, and that the law will presume innocence in the absence of convincing evi dence to the contrary, the burden of proof, unless shifted by legislative interference, will fall on the prosecuting party, though in order to convict he must necessarily have recourse to negative evidence; 1 Tayl. Ey. 8th ed. §§ 113, 371; U. S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 460, 6 L. Ed. 693. The burden of proof is throughout on the government, to make out the whole case; and when a prima facie case is established, the burden of proof is not thereby shifted upon the de fendant, and he is not bound to restore him self to that presumption of innocence in which he was at the commencement of the trial ; State v. Middleham, 62 Ia. 150, 17 N. W. 446; Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 366; People v. Fairchild, 48 Mich. 31, 11 N. W.
773. As to the burden of proof where the defence of insanity is set up, see INSANITY.