Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Alleged misstatement of the burden of proof

Text: Defendant asserts that during closing argument the prosecutor misled the jury by confusing circumstantial evidence rules with the reasonable doubt requirement, thereby creating a substantial likelihood one or more jurors would place the burden on defendant to affirmatively raise a reasonable doubt in order to gain an acquittal. The challenged comments of the prosecutor were as follows: Now, we're starting to get a little better sense of what `burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt' means. It means: Is there a reasonable interpretation of this evidence other than Richard Bert Stewart killed three people? The answer to that question is no. And, ladies and gentlemen, I'll do it right now. I challenge defense counsel to talk about the evidence in this case, and tell you  give you  let us all listen very carefully to see if he does it  a reasonable interpretation of this evidence that says that [defendant] is not guilty.... Once again, defense counsel did not object to this passage, and because a timely admonition would have cured any resulting harm, defendant cannot now complain of this asserted misconduct on appeal. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) In any event, on the facts of this case, any misconduct would be harmless. The statement was plainly an attempt to elaborate on the interaction between the concepts of reasonable and unreasonable doubt, and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is highly questionable whether a reasonable juror, hearing only the quoted language, would understand that the prosecutor was advising that defendant bore the burden of establishing reasonable doubt. But as explained below, the jury did not hear only the quoted language  and indeed, in light of the rest of the prosecutor's comments, it is plain that no reasonable juror would have understood or believed that defendant bore the burden of establishing reasonable doubt. The prosecutor did not previously or thereafter argue that defendant's failure to offer an adequate explanation of the killings itself warranted a guilty verdict. Prior to the challenged comments, the prosecutor twice explicitly acknowledged that the People bore the burden of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, as noted ante, part II.M.5, immediately after making the challenged comments, the prosecutor explicitly posed the question to the jury whether, if defense counsel failed to provide a reasonable interpretation of the evidence showing defendant to be not guilty, are you done? No. He doesn't have to say anything at all. Even if he doesn't offer you a reasonable interpretation of this evidence, you have an independent obligation to put the People to our proof as you find it. The prosecutor continued: Where is the reasonable interpretation of this evidence which points to anything other than the guilt of [defendant]? It doesn't exist. That is what the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is all about. And that's why the instruction says the defendant is entitled to a reasonable doubt. He is not entitled to an unreasonable doubt. Subsequently, the prosecutor reiterated that even though defense counsel had not given the jury any reasonable explanation of defendant's role in the killings, that doesn't mean our burden is over. You put the People to the test.... We conclude that when viewed in their entirety, the prosecutor's statements were not likely to mislead a reasonable juror into believing that defendant bore the burden of establishing a reasonable doubt, and did not constitute misconduct.