Document: 498 U.S. 39 111 S.Ct. 328 112 L.Ed.2d 339 Tommy CAGEv.LOUISIANA. No. 89-7302. Nov. 13, 1990. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition a writ certiorari are granted. 2 In state criminal trials, Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment "protects accused against conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt every fact necessary constitute crime with which he is charged." re Winship, 397 358, 364, 90 1068, 1073, 25 368 (1970); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 307, 315-316, 99 2781, 2787, 61 560 (1979). This standard "plays vital role American scheme procedure." U.S., at 363, S.Ct., 1072. Among other things, "[i]t prime instrument reducing risk convictions resting on factual error." Ibid. issue before us whether instruction this case complied Winship. 3 Petitioner was convicted Louisiana trial court first-degree murder sentenced death. He appealed Supreme Court Louisiana, arguing, inter alia, that used guilt phase his constitutionally defective. provided relevant part: 4 "If you entertain as any or element defendant's guilt, it your duty give him benefit return verdict not guilty. Even where evidence demonstrates probability if does establish such doubt, must acquit accused. however, be one; one founded real tangible substantial basis mere caprice conjecture. It would rise grave uncertainty, raised mind by reasons unsatisfactory character lack thereof. A possible doubt. an actual man can seriously entertain. What required absolute mathematical certainty, but moral certainty." 554 So.2d 39, 41 (La.1989) (emphasis added). 5 rejected petitioner's argument. first observed use phrases "grave uncertainty" "moral certainty" instruction, "if taken out context, might overstate requisite degree uncertainty confuse jury." But "taking charge whole," concluded "reasonable persons ordinary intelligence understand definition 'reasonable doubt.' " our view, contrary "beyond doubt" requirement articulated 6 construing we consider how jurors could have understood whole. Francis Franklin, 471 316, 105 1965, 1972, 85 344 (1985). did point instruct convict, found doubt; then equated "actual doubt," stated what defendant plain words "substantial" "grave," they commonly understood, suggest higher than acquittal under standard. When those statements considered reference certainty," rather evidentiary becomes clear juror interpreted allow finding based below Clause.* 7 Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 8 so ordered. * Similar attempts define been widely criticized Federal Courts Appeals. See, e.g., Monk Zelez, 901 F.2d 885, 889-890 (CA10 1990); United States Moss, 756 329, 333 (CA4 1985); Indorato, 628 711, 720-721 (CA 1980); Byrd, 352 570, 575 (CA2 1965); Taylor Kentucky, 436 478, 488, 98 1930, 1936, 56 468 (1978).

Category: 0