REASONABLE DOUBT
The prosecution must prove its case
by more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, yet not necessarily to an
absolute certainty.
The State has the burden of proving
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases, where you were
told that it is necessary to prove only that a fact is more likely true than
not true. In criminal cases, the State’s
proof must be more powerful than that.
It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
A reasonable doubt is an honest and
reasonable uncertainty in your minds about the guilt of the defendant after you
have given full and impartial consideration to all of the evidence. A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence
itself or from a lack of evidence. It is
a doubt that a reasonable person hearing the same evidence would have.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is
proof, for example, that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's
guilt. In this world, we know very few
things with absolute certainty. In
criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible
doubt. If, based on your consideration
of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the
crime charged, you must find him/her guilty. If, on the
other hand, you are not firmly convinced of defendant's guilt, you must give
defendant the benefit of the doubt and find him/her not guilty.
