With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". marital privilege could be invoked to prevent one spouse from testifying against the other. Lavicky v. State, 1981 OK CR 87, ¶ 6, 632 P.2d 1234, 1236. In contrast, the Code "limits the marital privilege, in criminal cases, to 'confidential communications.’ " Id. See also Evidence Subcommittee's Note to 12 O.S., § 2504. 9 . Instruction No. 13 substantially sets forth the procedure contained in the uniform instructions for consideration of lesser included offenses. It properly informed the jury of the punishment range for manslaughter and that the issue of punishment for first degree murder was not before the jury at that time. 10 . Hogan's requested instructions on manslaughter as a lesser included offense were filed and the record shows the trial court included them all in it 2329-30 (<HOLDING>); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 703-04, 95

A: holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause
B: holding that the trial courts erroneous instruction on the nonexistent included offense of attempted reckless manslaughter was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the jury reached a unanimous guilty verdict as to the charged offense of attempted murder in the second degree
C: holding that when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a state criminal conviction the relevant question under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
D: holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process
A.