Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was involved suspected of being involved in a drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of a 16-month-old child. D was put on trial for felony murder and other crimes. The trial court initially gave the jury an instruction regarding the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and reasonable doubt that was consistent with PIK Crim. 3d 52.02.court. The jury requested a clear definition of reasonable doubt. P argued that no definition of reasonable doubt should be given. After being provided two possible definitions by the court, defense counsel stated he knew of no reason to object to either instruction and then chose one. The court gave the following additional instruction:
'You are instructed that a reasonable doubt is just what the words themselves imply a doubt founded on reason. It is such a doubt as a juror is able to give a reason for.
'A 'reasonable doubt' is not a mere possibility, an imaginary doubt, a doubt arising from a whim, mere fancy, or a sudden change of mind without any apparent or adequate reason, therefore. It cannot be based on groundless conjecture.
'Reasonable doubt is that state of the case which, after a comparison and consideration of all the evidence presented to you, leaves your mind in that condition that you cannot say you have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the guilt of Mr. Walker. A juror has a reasonable doubt when he does not have an abiding conviction of mind, founded on the evidence or want of evidence, to a moral certainty that convinces and directs his understanding and satisfies his reason and judgment that Mr. Walker is guilty as charged.
'Stated another way, if you have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the claims in instruction no. 10 or no. 11, you must find Mr. Walker not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the claims in instruction no. 10 or no. 11, you must find Mr. Walker guilty.'
D was convicted and appealed in part on the jury instruction. D attacks the instruction at several points.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co