Is a prosecution error in instructions on reasonable doubt structural requiring automatic reversal?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Miller, C083193 (Cal. App. 2018):
2. Defendant argues the prosecution error was structural requiring automatic reversal. His authorities demonstrate that errors in trial court instructions on reasonable doubt are structural. (See, e.g., Weaver v. Massachusetts (2017) ___ U.S. ___ [137 S.Ct. 1899, 1908, 198 L.Ed.2d 420, 431].) However, this case concerns the arguments of counsel, which are governed by the rules set out herein.
"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
If an instruction omits a required definition of an offence is harmless only if the error is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, can the error be reversed? (California, United States of America)
Does a cumulative effect of errors resulting in errors requiring reversal require reversal? (California, United States of America)
If defendant fails to establish all the errors of the trial court as a cumulative result of the cumulative error, can he continue to argue that the cumulative effect of the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates reversal? (California, United States of America)
Are instructions to the jury in a state criminal trial that omit the requirement of proof of every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt automatically reversible? (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)
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 placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (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)
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)
