Esther Marlin is prosecuted for alleged aggravated murder of her husband Wilbur. The offense is defined as"purposefully killing another withprior calculation and design." The evidence indicates that Esther and Wilbur quarreled over grocery money in the kitchen of their home, that Wilbur struck Esther in the head, that she went upstairs, donned a robe, and then returned with Wilbur's pistol. Wilbur saw that Esther was carrying something, asked her about it, and then came at her. She fired six shots, three of which struck and killed Wilbur.

At trial,Esther claims that she acted in self-defense.

Applying state law,the trial judge advises the jury that Esther bears the burden of proving self-defense. He instructs that self-defense requires that defendant (1) be not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the argument and (2) have an honest belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that only such force could provide a means of escape.

The jury finds Esther guilty. In the U.S. Supreme Court, she argues that the instruction putting on her the burden of persuasion on self-defense violates Winship-Mullaney-Patterson. Specifically, she argues that requiring her to prove that she believed that she was in "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" unconstitutionally relieved the state of its burden to prove that she acted with "prior calculation and design."

What result, and why?