Opinion ID: 1969272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Requirement

Text: [¶ 3] In all criminal prosecutions, [t]he prosecution bears the burden of proving all elements of the offense charged, and must persuade the factfinder `beyond a reasonable doubt' of the facts necessary to establish each of those elements. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277-78, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2080, 124 L.Ed.2d 182, 188 (1993) (citations omitted); See also State v. Lunney, 400 A.2d 759, 762-63 (Me.1979); 17-A M.R.S.A. § 32(1983). The beyond-a-reasonable-doubt requirement prescribed by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution applies in state as well as federal proceedings. Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 278, 113 S.Ct. at 2080-81, 124 L.Ed.2d at 188. [¶ 4] The adequacy and propriety of any jury instruction `is determined by reviewing the charge in its entirety rather than in isolated extracts.' State v. Ashley, 666 A.2d 103, 106 (Me.1995) (citing State v. Sapiel, 432 A.2d 1262, 1270 (Me.1981)). Having reviewed the court's instructions to the jury in their entirety, we conclude that the court properly instructed the jury that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt all of the facts necessary to prove each element of the offense charged.