Is the reasonable doubt instruction insufficient to support the definition of reasonable doubt in CALCRIM No. 220?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Brambila, G046681 (Cal. App. 2013):

Defendant maintains the reasonable doubt instruction is insufficient because the misconduct "does not run counter to the definition of reasonable doubt in CALCRIM No. 220[ but rather] 'helps explain' the concept of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' and how to arrive at an 'abiding conviction' in a way that is easier for jurors to understand than the vague jury instruction." According to defendant, that "means many jurors are likely to rely on it as a plain-language interpretation that stands in for the more obscure language of the actual instruction." The contention is unsupported and goes against the fundamental assumption "that jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court's instructions." (People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 940.) We thus reject it.

Other Questions


Is the reasonable doubt instruction insufficient to support the definition of reasonable doubt in CALCRIM No. 220? (California, United States of America)
Does the definition of reasonable doubt in Cal.C.CRCRIM No. 220, 220, give rise to a claim that it does not properly define reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the absence of an instruction defining reasonable doubt result in a jury failing to apply the same reasonable doubt test? (California, United States of America)
Does the absence of lingering doubt from a recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise reasonable doubt raise a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the definition of reasonable doubt given during jury selection constitute a jury instruction? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for misconduct in a criminal case where a prosecutor argued that reasonable doubt was not a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What are the consequences of the Court's failure to instruct on an instructing on a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt finding? (California, United States of America)
Does the evidence support the finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the sexual assault charges against Backman were not supported by the weight of the evidence? (California, United States of America)
Is there any reasonable doubt that there would have been no reasonable doubt in a jury finding a defendant guilty absent the error? (California, United States of America)
Is there compelling legal argument to support the argument that the definition of reasonable doubt is unconstitutional? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.