Opinion ID: 1744613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: assignment of error numbers four and five

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court improperly charged the jury with respect to reasonable doubt and erred in refusing to give a requested jury charge concerning reasonable doubt. [4] The jury was instructed, in pertinent part, as follows: To begin with, every person in this state accused of crime is presumed by law to be innocent until his guilt shall have been established beyond a reasonable doubt in trial. The burden is upon the State to prove every essential element of the crime charged including identity.       The identification of the defendant as the person committing the offense must be proved to your entire satisfaction and beyond all reasonable doubt before you would be justified in finding him guilty.       It is the duty of the jury in considering the evidence and in applying to that evidence the law as given by the court, give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt arising out of the evidence or want of evidence in the case. If you are not convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty to find him not guilty. (Tr. 405-406)       Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a phrase that is almost self-explanatory. Reasonable doubt does not mean all possible doubt but means doubt based upon a reason. If, after you have considered the State's evidence and the law applicable, there is doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the accused, which doubt is based upon a reason or for which doubt you can express a reason, then the defendant is not guilty. Reasonable doubt is rational; it is governed by reason. It is not immoderate or excessive. It is honest, equitable and fair. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof to an absolute certainty. (Tr. 406-407) In State v. McDaniel, 410 So.2d 754 (La. 1982) the phrases great uncertainty and morally uncertain were held to have overstated the degree of uncertainty required for a reasonable doubt. Defendant argues that the statement that reasonable doubt is not immoderate or excessive also gave this jury a misleading standard for proof of guilt. One of the dictionary definitions of reasonable is not excessive. Another is moderate, i.e., not immoderate. While it would have been preferable for the trial court to have read only the exact language of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 804 to the jury, the phrase not immoderate or excessive is not misleading. See State v. Taylor, 410 So.2d 224 (La.1982). The trial court included the language of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 804 in its charge. Since the gist of defendant's requested charge was included in the court's charge, refusal to make the requested special charge was not error. State v. Edwards, 419 So.2d 881 (La.1982). This assignment lacks merit.