Louisiana Jury Instructions–Civil and Criminal
CHAPTER 2 Criminal Jury Instructions
XX. General Principles

§ 20.01 Burden of Proof

A.
B.
In a criminal matter, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove all facts necessary for conviction of the crime charged. The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest burden of proof presently required in our judicial system. La. C.Cr.P. Art. 804 provides as follows:

In all cases the court shall charge the jury that:

(1) A person accused of crime is presumed by law to be innocent until each element of the crime, necessary to constitute his guilt, is proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
(2) It is the duty of the jury, in considering the evidence and in applying to that evidence the law as given by the court, to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising out of the evidence or out of the lack of evidence in the case; and
(3) It is the duty of the jury if not convinced of the guilt of a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, to find him not guilty.

The court may, but is not required to, define “the presumption of innocence” or “reasonable doubt” or give any other or further charge upon the same than that contained in this article.

When there are several grades of an offense contained in a single count, the court shall charge the jury as to each grade of which the defendant could be found guilty. The court shall in that case also charge the jury that if it has a reasonable doubt as to any or all grades of the offense charged it shall find the defendant not guilty of that grade, or all grades of the offense, as the case may be.

In a 1982 case the Louisiana Supreme Court considered a jury instruction, an abbreviated portion of which is provided as a possible instruction to the jury relative to understanding the prosecution’s burden of beyond a reasonable doubt:

If you entertain any reasonable doubt as to any fact or element necessary to constitute the defendant’s guilt, it is your sworn duty to give him the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict of not guilty. Even where the evidence demonstrates a probability of guilt, yet if it does not establish it beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit the accused. This doubt must be a reasonable one, that is, one founded upon a real, tangible, substantial basis, and not upon mere caprice, fancy or conjecture. It must be such a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty, raised in your minds by reason of the unsatisfactory character of the evidence; one that would make you feel that you had not an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the defendant’s guilt. If, after giving a fair and impartial consideration to all of the facts in the case, you find the evidence unsatisfactory upon any single point indispensably necessary to constitute the defendant’s guilt, this would give rise to such a reasonable doubt as would justify you in rendering a verdict of not guilty.

The Louisiana Supreme court later considered the finding of a US Supreme Court case and found:

Most recently, in Victor v. Nebraska,2Link to the text of the note the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Boyde/McGuire standard. The proper inquiry in reviewing a jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied it in an unconstitutional manner. 127 L. Ed. 2d at 589. Having established the applicable standard of review, the Court considered the constitutionality of attempts by courts in Nebraska and California to define “reasonable doubt.” Noting that the Constitution does not require either that “reasonable doubt” be defined to the jury as a matter of course or that any particular words be used to advise the jury of the government’s beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof, that Court, quoting Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 (1954), concluded that the instructions given by the Nebraska and California courts, taken as a whole, correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury. 127 L. Ed. 2d at 601. Furthermore, said the majority in Victor, in only Cage v. Louisiana had the United States Supreme Court held a definition of reasonable doubt to violate the Due Process Clause. 127 L. Ed. 2d at 590.

In any case, a court and the attorneys involved, should be careful concerning an instruction and a review of the US Supreme Court analysis of the constitutionality and sufficiency of an instruction concerning reasonable doubt in any particular case varies widely and can be very confusing. It is also important to keep in mind that the jury should be advised that the prosecution must prove each element of a particular offense that has been charged to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Louisiana Supreme Court found that the following district court general charge fairly covered the issue:

While the State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not have to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. Reasonable doubt is doubt based on reason and common sense and is present when, after you have carefully considered all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the truth of the charge.

Where the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed an offense, but the evidence establishes a reasonable doubt as to the degree of offense committed, the defendant may be convicted only of the lesser degree of offense charged in the indictment as the evidence shows was committed. The lack of evidence in the testimony adduced at trial may be relied upon as the basis for the establishment of reasonable doubt. The jury is not restricted to the evidence adduced from the witness stand for the creation of a reasonable doubt.

 

[230619]