Court Opinion

ID: 9794871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:13:15.624491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:54.691427
License: Public Domain

NIX, Judge
(dissenting):
The early decisions of this Court have held that it is better that the trial judge refrain from an attempt to define “reasonable doubt”. The Court in recent decisions has failed to reverse convictions because of an instruction defining the term. However, in each instance the Court has vigorously criticized such an instruction. I prefer adherence to the ruling as laid down in Hammons v. State, 80 Okl.Cr. 33, 156 P.2d 379, wherein it is stated that to define reasonable doubt constitutes grounds for reversal. If the rule was worthy of being adopted by this Court, there should be no exceptions. Therefore, I cannot agree to relaxing the rule by saying it is harmless.