California Jury Instruction - Definition of Reasonable Doubt

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - Basic Criminal Claim Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CR-3
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs.

California Jury Instruction — Definition of Reasonable Doubt is an important legal concept that instructs jurors on the burden of proof required for conviction in a criminal trial. It helps them understand the level of certainty needed to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This instruction is designed to safeguard the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial. In California, the standard definition given to jurors for reasonable doubt is outlined in CAL CRIM 220. According to this instruction, reasonable doubt is defined as follows: "Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. The prosecution is not required to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. In deciding whether a defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial." This definition establishes that reasonable doubt does not mean complete certainty, as such a standard would be impossible to meet. Instead, jurors should consider all the evidence presented, compare it objectively, and only find the defendant guilty if they have an abiding conviction of their guilt. It emphasizes that merely having possible or imaginary doubts is not sufficient to create reasonable doubt. It is worth mentioning that while CAL CRIM 220 provides the standard definition for reasonable doubt in California, there may be additional or modified instructions for specific types of cases. For example, there may be different instructions for murder trials, fraud cases, or drug offenses. However, the core principle remains the same — jurors must have an abiding conviction of the defendant's guilt based on a thorough consideration of all the evidence presented. In summary, California Jury Instruction — Definition of Reasonable Doubt, particularly as outlined in CAL CRIM 220, guides jurors to carefully assess all the evidence and determine if there is a level of certainty that convinces them of the defendant's guilt. It ensures that defendants are not convicted on mere suspicion or weak evidence and upholds the principles of fairness and justice in the state's criminal justice system.