Opinion ID: 2714926
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Crosswalks

Text: In explaining reasonable doubt in his closing, the prosecutor told a narrative about approaching a crosswalk and seeing a car coming: He has the red light, you've got a walk sign, you look at him, he sees you, he's slowing down, he nods and you start walking. You're walking because beyond a reasonable doubt you're confident you can walk across that crosswalk without getting run over. Id. at 8728. As the Court of Appeals points out, When a prosecutor compares the reasonable doubt standard to everyday decision making, it improperly minimizes and trivializes the gravity of the standard and the jury's role. Lindsay & Holmes, 171 Wn. App. at 828 (citing State v. Anderson, 153 Wn. App. 417, 431, 220 P .3d 1273 (2009)). We agree with the Court of Appeals that this kind of analogy to everyday experiences trivializes the State's burden of proof and is improper.