Opinion ID: 874762
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Prosecutor's Statement Regarding the Reasonable Doubt Instruction Deny Defendant Due Process of Law by Lowering the Standard of Proof for a Conviction?

Text: The district court instructed the jury: Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is the state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. Defendant does not challenge the instruction given by the trial court. He admits that the language of the instruction itself likely comports with the requirements of due process. He contends that unobjected-to comments by the prosecuting attorney during her closing argument, if followed by the jury, would have permitted it to convict Defendant upon proof that was less than beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court instructed the jury on the meaning of reasonable doubt. Immediately following that instruction, it instructed the jury, As members of the jury, it is your duty to decide what the facts are and to apply those facts to the law that I have given you.  (Emphasis added.) After instructing the jury on the applicable law and the verdict form, the court stated,  I have outlined for you the rules of law applicable to this case and have told you of some of the matters which you may consider in weighing the evidence to determine the facts. (Emphasis added.) We presume that the jury followed the jury instructions given by the trial court in reaching its verdict, Phillips v. Erhart, 151 Idaho 100, ___, 254 P.3d 1, 10 (2011), and there is no indication that the jury did not follow the court's instructions.