In criminal trials, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest legal standard of proof – meaning that even a belief that the defendant is likely guilty, must result in a not guilty verdict. That high standard is the last line of defense for citizens accused of crimes. A high standard is important, in no small part, because of how easy it can be to get falsely accused of a crime.
Although “reasonable doubt” is the standard everywhere in America, each state has its own exact wording to explain what “reasonable doubt” means in jury instructions. We’ll explain how some states define reasonable doubt and how surprisingly different the definitions can be.
- Very High Standard: Reasonable doubt means more than simply having doubts. Jurors are told they must be convinced to a very high degree of certainty. It does not require proof beyond all possible doubt, because absolute certainty is impossible.
- Presumed Innocent: Everyone starts presumed innocent. The defendant does not have to prove innocence – the state must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply being charged or arrested is not considered evidence of guilt.
Missouri: “Firmly Convinced”
Missouri law requires the judge to define reasonable doubt in every criminal case. Missouri’s model instructions tell jurors:
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. The law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, after your consideration of all evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty… you will find him guilty. If you are not so convinced, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.”
In other words, Missouri jurors must be “firmly convinced” of guilt. Missouri and federal courts have approved this definition because it tells jurors to give the defendant “the benefit of the doubt” unless they are very sure. Despite the approval of this definition, many feel that being “firmly convinced” results in a lower standard of guilt than requiring the jury to be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
California: Abiding Conviction
California’s official jury instructions (CALCRIM) use surprisingly different language. They define reasonable doubt as an “abiding conviction”. For example, the California Courts explain:
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true.”
For most people an “abiding conviction” feels like or conveys a higher standard than “firmly convinced.” Look at the dictionary definitions shows why:
Abiding = “Continuing for a long time; enduring”; Conviction = “a strong persuasion or belief”
Firmly = “Well-founded”; Convinced = “to bring to belief”
An “abiding conviction,” then, is an “enduring, strong belief.”
Being “firmly convinced,” then, is a “well-founded belief.”
Massachusetts: Moral Certainty
Massachusetts jury instructions likewise uses the phrase “abiding conviction,” but adds that the conviction must be “to a moral certainty.” The official Massachusetts jury charge says:
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt… A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true.”
The us of the word “moral” is particularly interesting in that it seems to order an acquittal if a juror merely believes a guilty verdict will way on the juror’s conscience. Moreover, the use of the word “certainty” strongly emphasizes that the juror must have almost no doubt of the defendant’s guilt before returning a guilty verdict.
But, they don’t stop there, either. The instruction further explains that a moral certainty means “the highest degree of certainty that human affairs can allow.” So, the instruction in Massachusetts actually uses the word “certainty” twice. Not only does it use the word “certainty,” but it ultimately describes “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the highest degree of certainty humanly possible.
Texas: No definition
Texas takes a different approach entirely. Although Texas required a definition of reasonable doubt be read to the jury previously, in 2000, Texas courts changed direction entirely. After 2000, Texas required its trial courts to NOT define beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury at all. So, Texas juries are merely instructed that the State must prove its charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although definitions of legal terms are often helpful, if not essential, to make sure jurors know what is meant by specific terms, Texas’ approach makes a lot of sense. For all intents and purposes “beyond a reasonable doubt” is self-explanatory. The State does not have to prove there case beyond all doubt; but, if the jury has any “reasonable” doubts, then they must acquit. Doubt, reasonable, and beyond are all common words being used with their commonly understood meanings.
Texas now views any attempt to further define the concept as potentially confusing to jurors. Texas deems defining it not only as unnecessary, but also as potentially harmful to justice. A quick review of the variable standards offered by other states perfectly demonstrates why Texas has abandoned the practice.
Key Takeaways
- Definition Varies by State: Jurors must be nearly certain to return a guilty verdict, but how “certain” or “convinced” the jury must be can be defined in remarkably different ways depending on what state you are in.
- Missouri tells jurors to be “firmly convinced”, California says “with an abiding conviction”, and Massachusetts says “an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty”, while Texas offers no definition at all.
Our St. Peters, Missouri law firm helps clients understand how reasonable doubt works in trial and how it might apply in their particular case. If you have questions about a criminal case or jury instructions in Missouri, contact our criminal defense attorneys for guidance.