Opinion ID: 2576322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Reasonable Doubt Instructions

Text: ¶ 16 We first address Cruz's argument that the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions fell short of the Robertson standard and were therefore improper. Generally, [w]hether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law which we review for correctness. State v. S.H., 2002 UT 118, ¶ 11, 62 P.3d 444. Cruz admits, however, that he never objected to the substance of the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions. That omission would normally render the instructions reviewable for plain error, or manifest injustice, rather than for correctness. State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54, 70 P.3d 111; see also State v. Casey, 2003 UT 55, ¶ 40, 82 P.3d 1106 ([I]n most circumstances the term `manifest injustice' is synonymous with the `plain error' standard . . . . (internal quotations omitted)). To establish plain error, Cruz would be required to demonstrate that (i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined. Id. at ¶ 41 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 17 Erroneous reasonable doubt instructions, however, give rise to structural errors, Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281-82, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), which are different than garden-variety trial errors, see Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1, 7 (Colo.2001). Structural errors are flaws in the `framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.' State v. Russell, 917 P.2d 557, 560 (Utah Ct.App.1996) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)). Because they affect the very framework of the trial, structural errors are not subject to plain error analysis. Griego, 19 P.3d at 7. Specifically, instead of requiring an aggrieved defendant to prove prejudice, as a plain error analysis requires, a structural error analysis presumes prejudice. State v. Arguelles, 2003 UT 1, ¶ 94 n. 23, 63 P.3d 731. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, we would review the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions for correctness, S.H., 2002 UT 118 at ¶ 11, 62 P.3d 444, and remand for a new trial if we found those instructions erroneous. ¶ 18 The fact that Cruz never objected to the substance of the jury instructions, though, presents an additional wrinkle. In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that, where the defendant failed to properly object at trial, rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandated plain error review, as described in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), even if the trial court's error was structural in nature. Johnson, 520 U.S. at 464-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544; see United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355 F.3d 40, 47 n. 5 (1st Cir.2004) (noting that, in Johnson, the Supreme Court assumed that an error was `structural' but nevertheless held that, because the defendant had failed to preserve his objection, `plain error' appellate review applied). [2] Under that rule, a defendant claiming constitutional error who did not object at trial may only argue plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal and thus must prove prejudice, even if the constitutional error claimed on appeal is structural in nature. Other state courts follow a similar rule. See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 597 S.E.2d 724, 745 (2004) (Structural error, no less than other constitutional error, should be preserved at trial.). Here, though, we need not decide whether Cruz's failure to object to the reasonable doubt instructions forecloses his claim of structural error because we conclude that the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions were not erroneousthe first prong in both plain error and structural error analyses. ¶ 19 In Robertson, we recognized that the test for measuring the validity of reasonable doubt instructions, which had been articulated by Justice Stewart in his dissent in State v. Ireland, 773 P.2d 1375, 1381 (Utah 1989) (Stewart, J., dissenting), had been adopted by a majority of this court in State v. Johnson, 774 P.2d 1141, 1147-49 (Utah 1989). Robertson, 932 P.2d at 1232. Under that test, reasonable doubt instructions were required to meet the following three requirements: First, the instruction should specifically state that the State's proof must obviate all reasonable doubt. Second, the instruction should not state that a reasonable doubt is one which would govern or control a person in the more weighty affairs of life, as such an instruction tends to trivialize the decision of whether to convict. Third, it is inappropriate to instruct that a reasonable doubt is not merely a possibility, although it is permissible to instruct that a fanciful or wholly speculative possibility ought not to defeat proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Cruz contends that instructions fifteen through eighteenthe trial court's reasonable doubt instructionsran afoul of the first Robertson requirement in that they failed to affirmatively state that the State's proof must obviate all reasonable doubt. ¶ 20 The State invites us to reject the Robertson test in favor of the standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). In Victor, the Court stated that so long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof. Rather, taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly convey the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury. Id. at 5, 114 S.Ct. 1239 (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Under Victor, reasonable doubt instructions are unconstitutional if they allow `a reasonable juror . . . [to] interpret[ ] the instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause.' Id. at 6, 114 S.Ct. 1239 (quoting Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 41, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 n. 4, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991)). Conversely, so long as the reasonable doubt instructions, taken as a whole, . . . correctly convey[ ] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury, they pass constitutional muster. Id. at 22, 112 S.Ct. 475 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 21 In State v. Reyes, 2005 UT 33, 116 P.3d 305, which was argued the same day as this appeal, the State also urged us to overrule Robertson. We accepted that invitation, and pursuant to our opinion in Reyes, the Robertson test is no longer in force. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 30, 34. We now adhere instead to the Victor test for assessing the validity of reasonable doubt instructions. Simply put, we need only ask whether the instructions, taken as a whole, correctly communicate the principle of reasonable doubt, namely, that a defendant cannot be convicted of a crime except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). ¶ 22 We hold that the jury instructions given during Cruz's trial, taken as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the concept of reasonable doubt. Those instructions provided a clear and accurate definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They also correctly stated that the prosecution carried the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In sum, they conveyed all of the information required by Victor that the court instruct[] the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, 511 U.S. at 5, 114 S.Ct. 1239and they did so in a clear and specific manner. Accordingly, the trial court's reasonable doubt instructions were not erroneous and do not warrant a new trial.