Opinion ID: 1255692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Nevada's Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction

Text: Bollinger argues that the district court erred in improperly instructing the jury concerning reasonable doubt. Bollinger argues that the more weighty affairs portion of the instruction is misleading because a decision concerning the more weighty affairs of our lives involves an element of risk-taking, while a decision to convict is always retrospective, concerned only with resolving conflicting versions of factual propositions. Bollinger relies upon persuasive language found in Victor v. Nebraska, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1239 (1994), and State v. Ireland, 773 P.2d 1375 (Utah 1989), to support this argument. In Lord v. State, 107 Nev. 28, 38, 806 P.2d 548, 552 (1991), we upheld over constitutional challenge the abiding conviction element of Nevada's reasonable doubt instruction. We did not scrutinize the more weighty affairs language presently under review. Nevertheless, we note that our proper inquiry is not whether the instruction `could have' been applied in unconstitutional manner, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury did so apply it. Victor, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1243 (emphasis in original). We believe in Bollinger's case that no such likelihood exists. We note that in Ireland the Supreme Court of Utah found use of the language Bollinger now questions to be harmless because two other jury instructions (concerning the State's burden of proof and the presumption of innocence) were also offered. Ireland, 773 P.2d at 1380. [2] Similar instructions were also offered in Bollinger's case.