Proposed Jury Instruction for Reasonable Doubt

NOTICE TO COUNSEL AND JUDGES: As provided in the Court's Order accepting the proposed jury instructions for a period of working review, the Court's provisional approval "is for the purpose of refining and testing the application and accuracy of the pattern instructions and does not ensure error-free trials, and their use does not carry a no-reversal guarantee. It is not intended that this provisional acceptance is a final approval of the content of any instruction and each judge may use or refuse any instruction as he or she sees fit[,]" according to law. (emphasis added).

REASONABLE DOUBT AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

_______________ INSTRUCTION NO. _____

    The law presumes the defendant to be innocent of crime. Thus the defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a "clean slate"----with no evidence against him/her. And the law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.
    It is not required that the state prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense----the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.
    The jury will remember that a defendant is never to be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture.
    The burden is always on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a defendant, for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
    So, if the jury, after careful and impartial consideration of all of the evidence in the case, has a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge, it must acquit. If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions---one of innocence, the other of guilt---the jury should of course adopt the conclusion of innocence.


COMMENT

REASONABLE DOUBT AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

1.     State v. Goff, 166 W.Va. 47, 272 S.E. 2d 457, 462-463 (1980). The Supreme Court of Appeals sanctioned this instruction which combines the burden of proof reasonable doubt instruction with the presumption of innocence instruction. (See Footnote 9 in State v. Goff).
2.     State v. Barnett, 168 W.Va. 361, 284 S.E. 2d 622 (1981); State v. Goff, Supra. An instruction on the state's burden of proof (reasonable doubt) and presumption of innocence are always required to be given even if the defendant's counsel fails to request such an instruction.
3.     State v. Ashcraft, 172 W.Va. 640, 652-653, 309 S.E. 2d 600, 612-613, (1983); State v. Patton, 171 W.Va. 419, 422, 299 S.E. 2d 31, 33-34 (1982); State v. Helmick, 169 W.Va. 94, 102-103, 286 S.E. 2d 245, 250 (1982). Attempts to define "beyond a reasonable doubt" have resulted in conviction reversals. Such definitional instructions are not favored. The instruction sanctioned in State v. Goff should be used.