Opinion ID: 2507466
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Instructions Undermining the Reasonable Doubt Standard

Text: Defendant contends that various instructions relating to the prosecution's burden of proof were constitutionally defective. (CALJIC Nos. 1.00, 2.01, 2.21.2, 2.22, 2.27, 2.51, 8.83.1.) He asserts that these instructions in various combinations resulted in the dilution of the reasonable-doubt requirement, thereby violating his rights to due process, trial by jury, and a reliable capital trial. (U.S. Const., 6th, 8th, 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 7, 15, 17.) We reject each of these claims. Defendant claims that CALJIC Nos. 2.01 and 8.83.1, which directed the jury to accept reasonable inferences and reject unreasonable ones, impermissibly (1) compelled the jury to find defendant guilty on all counts and to find the special circumstance true by using a standard lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) required the jury to draw an incriminatory inference when the inference merely seemed reasonable. Not so. These instructions do not create `an impermissible mandatory conclusive presumption of guilt' ( People v. Nakahara, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 714, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190), nor do they permit the jury to base a determination of guilt on something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 127, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 319,131 P.3d 400.) Defendant also argues that five instructions (CALJIC Nos. 1.00, 2.21.2, 2.22, 2.27, 2.51) unconstitutionally lowered the requisite standard of proof. We have repeatedly rejected such challenges to these instructions, and do so again here. ( People v. Jurado, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 127, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 131 P.3d 400; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 131, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 172, 158 P.3d 743.) We reiterate that each of these instructions is unobjectionable when, as here, it is accompanied by the usual instructions on reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, and the People's burden of proof. ( People v. Nakahara, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 715, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 68 P.3d 1190.) As discussed above (see ante, 73 Cal. Rptr.3d at p. 641, 178 P.3d at pp. 1130-31). We see no basis to reconsider any of these holdings.