Answer:
The correct answer is D) Self-Defense
Step-by-step explanation:
There was a fight and the victim, John, lost his life. However at the trial, James puts a case against the jury that, while a fight did break out between him and John, he was only acting in his self-defense and did not want to kill someone.
This would mean that the murder was not premeditated and was an unfortunate conclusion of the events that broke out, in which James was involved.
This would then be called a 'justifiable homicide' and the burden of proof is on James to prove he is not guilty.
The difference is that if the jury does accept his justification than he might not be charged with formal murder charges and his sentence might be reduced.