THE INTERESTS AFFECTED BY A TRANSFER IN THE BURDEN OF PROOF ARE ANALYZED AS ARE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPARATIVE CONVENIENCE TEST IN MORRISON V CALIFORNIA (1934) AND THE ELEMENTS TEST. IN RE WINSHIP (1970) AND MULLANEY V WILBUR (1970) ARE ALSO EXAMINED TO DETERMINE THEIR IMPACT ON THE VARIOUS TYPES OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT THE STATE PROVE ALL ISSUES RELEVANT TO GUILT. THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THERE MUST BE A STRONG RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE STATE'S CASE AND THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS ALSO CONSIDERED. THE POSSIBLE EFFECT IF THE COURTS FIND AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS DISCUSSED.