Opinion ID: 2365445
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instructions Related to Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Text: Defendant contends that 11 standard CALJIC instructions individually and collectively violated his right, under In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 364 [25 L.Ed.2d 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068], not to be convicted of a crime on a standard less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges we previously have rejected these precise contentions, but requests that we reconsider our position as to each instruction. We decline to do so and summarily reaffirm our prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of the following instructions: CALJIC Nos. 2.01, 2.02, 2.21.1, 2.21.2, 2.22, 8.20, 8.83 and 8.83.1 ( People v. Nakahara (2003) 30 Cal.4th 705, 713-715 [134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190]; People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 428-429); CALJIC Nos. 1.00 and 2.51 ( People v. Guerra, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1139; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 97-98 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 65 P.3d 749]); and CALJIC No. 2.27 ( People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 941 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277]).