Opinion ID: 1946024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reinstruction on Reasonable Doubt

Text: [¶ 24] The court's written reinstruction on reasonable doubt provided to the jury begins with the following two sentences: The law presumes a defendant to be innocent. Thus, a defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a clean slate  with no evidence against him. [¶ 25] When the judge orally stated the reinstruction to the jury, he misspoke but immediately corrected himself. With respect to the above two sentences, he said: And as I previously instructed you, ladies and gentlemen, the law presumes a defendant in any criminal case to be innocent. Any defendant, although accused, technically begins  or actually begins a trial with a clean slate, that is no evidence at all against him. [¶ 26] After the court had completed the reinstruction session and the jury had been sent to resume deliberations, Saucier pointed out that the judge had used the word technically. Saucier said the use of the word was prejudicial, but he made no request of the court. Reviewing the court's instructions on reasonable doubt as a whole, including the first time the court gave the reasonable doubt instruction, the written reinstruction, and the court's own immediate correction, we cannot find that the court's mistaken use of the word technically amounts to prejudicial error.