Model Utah Jury Instructions, Second Edition – Criminal
Opening Instructions

CR103 Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases, where you were told that it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the prosecution’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find (him) (her) guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that (he) (she) is not guilty, you must give (him) (her) the benefit of the doubt and find (him) (her) not guilty.

References

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 362 (1970).
State v. Reyes, 2005 UT 33, P37, 116 P.3d 305.
State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, PP19-22, 122 P.3d 543.
State v. Austin, 2007 UT 55, 165 P.3d 1191.

Committee Notes

As an alternative to using the Reyes instruction, in State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, 122 P.3d 543 (argued the same day as Reyes) the Utah Supreme Court concluded that an alternative formulation of the reasonable doubt instruction, taken as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the concept of reasonable doubt, provided a clear and accurate definition of the concept, and correctly stated the prosecution’s burden. Accordingly, the courts and counsel may appropriately use either the Reyes instruction or the collective reasonable doubt instructions used in Cruz.

 

[230614]