Case Title: State v. McMahon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 90Ä464

                            NOVEMBER TERM, 1991



State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }          Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
                                  }
Patrick McMahon                   }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 817Ä10Ä890 OsCr



             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     Defendant appeals his conviction of arson, assigning error to the trial
court's failure to define "reasonable doubt" in its instruction to the jury.
We hold that such definition is not required and affirm.

     At trial, the court used the phrase "reasonable doubt" numerous times
in its charge to the jury.  The court never, however, defined reasonable
doubt and defendant never requested such definition.  As no objection was
made at trial, we confine our analysis to plain error.  We find that the
court did not err in declining to define "reasonable doubt."

     Defendant, relying on authority from other jurisdictions, asserts that
failure to define reasonable doubt to the jury is plain error.  We need not
look outside Vermont case law, however, to resolve this issue.  In State v.
Derouchie, 140 Vt. 437, 442Ä43,