Reasonable Doubt

The prosecution must prove its case by more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, yet not necessarily to an absolute certainty. The State 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 necessary to prove only that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the State's proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.      A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty in your minds about the guilt of the defendant  after you have given full and impartial consideration to all of the evidence. A reasonable doubt may arise   from the evidence itself or from a lack of evidence. It is a doubt that a reasonable person hearing the same evidence would have.        Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof, for example, that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's  guilt. In this world, we know very few things with absolute certainty. 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 are not firmly convinced of defendant's guilt, you must give defendant the benefit of the doubt and find [him/her] not guilty.