Court Opinion

ID: 9726503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:53:44.02666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:27.841471
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
The giving of an instruction such as the one read by the trial court to the jury in this base, and timely objected to by the appellant, has long been held to be reversible error in this State and I therefore dissent from the majority opinion.
In White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209, 125 N. E. 2d 705, an instruction which stated that the reasonable doubt standard should only be applied to evidence concerning a material fact of the case and not to evidence relating to “subsidiary evidence” was held to be erroneous and reversible. The court found that giving such an instruction was error on the grounds that:
“In determining whether such a doubt (reasonable doubt standard) arises from the evidence the jury has a right to consider the whole evidence and the defendant has a right *635to have the entire evidence so considered. The court cannot correctly exclude from the consideration of the jury, on such questions, the evidence adduced in support of subsidiary facts. If after considering the entire evidence the jury entertains a reasonable doubt as to the facts essential to constitute the effect, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of such doubt, even though it arises from the consideration of evidence adduced in support of a subsidiary fact.” White v. State, supra, quoting from Sharp v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 276, 123 N. E. 161.
The giving of a similar instruction was held reversible error in Jalbert v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 380, 165 N. E. 522.
It is apparent that the White instruction was found wanting because it attempted to divide evidence into two undefined categories and restrict the State’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial to only one of those categories. The instruction at issue in the present case attempts to accomplish the same thing, and therefore suffers from the identical flaw, as the one in White. Clearly the use of the term “facts” in the instruction here in place of the term “evidence” in the instruction in White has virtually no relevance to the nature of the error contained in the instruction, and the majority’s attempt to distinguish the two on that ground should fail. The section of the White opinion itself quoted above uses the very same two terms interchangeably.
I believe it is stare decisis that the giving of an instruction such as the one read at appellant’s trial is reversible error and I would therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.
Note. — Reported in 308 N. E. 2d 863.