Opinion ID: 2277244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Dilution of State's Burden of Proof

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly diluted the State's burden of proof by telling the jury you can figure out what happened and you will have to figure out what happened, and that the trial court further diluted that burden by advising the jury that it had a duty to determine where the truth rests. We find these contentions to be without merit. The prosecutor's comment occurred at the close of a lengthy summary of the evidence in a case in which the defendant asserted variously that he had not killed the victim and, if he had, he did so in the heat of passion. Moreover, defense counsel did not object to the challenged part of the summation. See State v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422 (1973). For its part, the trial court provided detailed instructions to the jury on the State's burden to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Looking at the charge in its entirety, there was no error. United States v. Gibson, 726 F. 2d 869, 874 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Lemire, 720 F. 2d 1327, 1339-43 (D.C. Cir.1983); United States v. Pine, 609 F. 2d 106, 107-08 (3rd Cir.1979); see State v. Ravenell, 43 N.J. 171, 186-87 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 982, 85 S.Ct. 690, 13 L.Ed. 2d 572 (1965); State v. Hipplewith, 33 N.J. 300, 317 (1960).