Opinion ID: 1858107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Reasonable Doubt/Supplemental Assignment of Error 2

Text: Defendant asserts reversible error occurred when the trial court erroneously instructed prospective jurors during voir dire that reasonable doubt was a doubt you can give good reason for, and one based on reason and common sense. Defendant admits a proper closing instruction was given, but argues the error occurring during voir dire infected the guilt and penalty phases. It appears the district court properly charged the jury as follows at the conclusion of the guilt phase. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, and is present, when, after you have carefully considered all of the evidence, you cannot say that you are convinced of the truth of the charge. A reasonable doubt is not a mere slight misgiving or a possible doubt. You may say it's self defining; it's a doubt that a reasonable person could entertain; it's a sensible doubt. A misstatement of law by the prosecutor does not prejudice a defendant if the judge subsequently admonishes or correctly instructs the jury. Roy, 95-0638 at p. 14-15, 681 So.2d at 1239-40. Similarly, a trial court's misstatement of the law during voir dire examination does not require reversal of a defendant's conviction if the court properly charges the jury at the close of the case. State v. Cavazos, 610 So.2d 127, 128 (La. 1992). Because the defense counsel herein never objected to the judge's instruction given during preliminary instructions in voir dire, the judge never admonished the jury. However, at the close of the guilt phase, the judge properly instructed the jury. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said defendant's right to a fair trial was not sufficiently protected or that he was prejudiced by the judge's original instruction during voir dire. This assignment lacks merit.