Is it improper for a prosecutor to argue that the prosecution has met its burden of overcome reasonable doubt on all elements?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Duenas, B276789 (Cal. App. 2018):
"[I]t is improper for the prosecutor . . . to attempt to absolve the prosecution from its prima facie obligation to overcome reasonable doubt on all elements [citation]." (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831.) Often, in attempting to clarify the reasonable doubt concept for the jury, the prosecution runs afoul of this rule by suggesting the prosecution has met its burden if it puts forth the only "reasonable" theory of the significance of the evidence or puts forth an explanation
Page 42
that is not rebutted by the defense. (See Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 832.)
"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.
