How have the courts interpreted the doctrine of "appears to you to be reasonable"?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Horning, 102 P.3d 228, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 305, 34 Cal.4th 871 (Cal. 2004):
(e) Defendant contends that the standard instructions on circumstantial evidence, which use the phrase "appears to you to be reasonable," "undermined the constitutional requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt." We have repeatedly rejected the argument and continue to do so. (People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 428, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.)
[22 Cal.Rptr.3d 337]
(f) Defendant contends that giving former CALJIC No. 2.90, with its use of the terms "moral certainty" and "moral evidence," improperly diluted the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We have also repeatedly rejected the argument and continue to do so. (People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 429, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.)[22 Cal.Rptr.3d 337]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted the rule of reasonableness in the context of the reasonable use doctrine? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a federal agency's interpretation of the California Civil Code? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the reasons of a trial court's finding that plaintiffs are barred from recovery from an illegal gambling contract? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the language of Ford v Chambers v. Chambers in the context of the doctrine of 'proceeding beyond a reasonable doubt'? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of self-defense in cases that address other legal doctrines? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted improvisation on reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
