A defendant cannot be convicted of a crime unless the prosecution proves that the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is a constitutional requirement of due process. The United States Constitution does not require a trial court to instruct a jury on the definition of reasonable doubt. However, the Constitution does not prohibit a trial court from providing a jury with a definition of reasonable doubt.
A trial court is required under the Constitution to instruct a jury that a defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. No particular words are required. The instruction must only advise the jury of the government's burden of proof. The instruction must also convey the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.
A trial court has the discretion to provide a jury with an instruction that defines the standard of reasonable doubt if the prosecution and the defense consent to the instruction. Most jury instructions on reasonable doubt state that the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that the prosecution must prove a defendant's guilt beyond all doubt.
Reasonable doubt generally means that the prosecution must prove all the elements of the offense with which a defendant is being charged. Although the defendant has a burden to prove any affirmative defenses, the prosecution is not required to disprove the defendant's affirmative defenses, as long as the defendant's due process right are not violated. However, if the defendant is required to negate an element of the offense under the guise of proving his or her affirmative defenses, the defendant's due process rights may be violated. The defendant's negation of an element of the offense relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove all the elements of the offense.
If a trial court's instruction to a jury places a burden on the prosecution in either the guilt phase of a defendant's trial or in the punishment phase of the defendant's trial, which burden is less than the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's due process rights may be violated. Any instruction that deviates from this standard of proof should be objected to by the defendant's counsel. An objection to the instruction will preserve the issue in the event of an appeal. Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
|
