The superior court overruled Sivertsen's objection to this argument and denied his motion for a mistrial. The court of appeals also noted that the superior court gave an appropriate instruction that confirmed that the jury was permitted to draw inferences from Sivertsen's conduct. We believe the prosecutor's message in this case could be understood to have a meaning similar to the instruction found unconstitutional in Sandstrom. Presumptions lead to decisions, whereas assumptions do not. . . . The phrase we assume, without deciding, is a favorite of common-law courts.
Criminal law is an area in which the precise use of language is particularly important.
On the other hand, one cannot expect a lawyer's oral summation to reach the same level of linguistic precision as written instructions from the court. And fine shades of meaning in oral arguments are apt to be lost, whereas critical distinctions are more likely to be conveyed by written jury instructions, which are both read and given to the jury for reference. Moreover, the prosecutor's argument cannot reasonably be read as a call to the jury to find that intent existed without the required proof of that intent. Instead, he argued that intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence and that a defendant's acts or omissions may indicate state of mind. The State bears the burden of proving every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.