In what circumstances will a jury interpret the instructions of a jury as permitting a conviction on a standard less than beyond beyond beyond the reasonable doubt?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, 77 Cal.App.4th 410, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 596 (Cal. App. 2000):

We view the instructions not in isolation but in light of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions as permitting a conviction on a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 383; People v. Van Winkle, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at pp. 142-143.) In making that determination, we consider the entire record of the trial, including other jury instructions and closing arguments to the jury. (Ibid.)

Other Questions


What is the difference between the "no reasonable possibility" standard and the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? (California, United States of America)
Is there a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction that a jury would not convict appellant of a charge of sexual assault simply because they concluded beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a reasonable probability of a more favourable result under the reasonable beyond reasonable doubt standard? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the test for determining whether a jury has met the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt to convict an appellant of murder? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is a failure to properly instruct on the increased risk of harm element of section 667.61 kidnapping qualifying circumstance harmless beyond 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)
Is the reasonable doubt instruction insufficient to support the definition of reasonable doubt in CALCRIM No. 220? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of proof for a prosecutor to argue that a reasonable doubt standard is reasonable? (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)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.