Document pointed to doesn't say anything about the burden at immunity. I wasn't pointing to the document for that reason. Everything below the url is just back-story regarding how I came across the document, it has nothing to do with the document itself other than the first sentence.
Right. But you originally said ,"I went searching after hearing a claim that Mr. O'Mara stated that the defense carries the burden of proof for self defense (person refused to cite a source, and they weren't saying it was true - just that he said it)," which is correct for immunity. I didn't know if you were citing the appeal, which describes the standard of proof for self defense at trial, as contradictory or even informative as against the claim that sent you searching. So, I just provided the burdens of production, persuasion and proof for the two contexts that appeared in your OP, immunity by the claim that sent you searching; and trial by the case you linked.
Just curious, when you say "other than the first sentence," are you referring to your "Essentially it's another self defense claim that went to appeals," or to the first sentence in the linked opinion? Is the only point of the OP to introduce an appeal taken by O'Mara? Meaning, you find nothing interesting about the appeal, or nothing particular to remark about it. If so, pardon me for butting into a pointless post.