Court Opinion

ID: 9765804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:20:12.875914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:15.879214
License: Public Domain

KLEIN, J.,
concurring and dissenting:
¶ 1 I join in the majority opinion reversing the convictions of all but the charge prohibiting a convict from possession of a firearm • under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105 (VUFA). I agree that it was prejudicial and unnecessary to reveal to the jury that Jones had a prior conviction.
¶ 2 I also agree that the conviction for the VUFA charge of a convict possessing a firearm can stand, because there is no way to try that charge without revealing a defendant’s prior convictions and therefore no prejudice for that charge.
¶ 3 However, I would reverse that VUFA charge for another reason. I disagree with the majority that there was no prejudice in the reinstruction of the jury on reasonable doubt. While I agree with the law cited by the majority, I do not think this example was a mere “technical inaccuracy” or that the rest of the charge accurately explains the law of reasonable doubt to the jury.
¶ 4 As noted by the majority, the trial judge had previously given a charge based on § 701 of the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, Pa. SSJI (Crim) § 701. As is not uncommon, the jury asked for clarification. Therefore, it is obvious that they were confused by the charge.
¶ 5 That is certainly not surprising. It points out the vital need to revamp our *1209jury instructions to make them understandable to a lay jury. People do not talk the way the charge is written. Most people do not use terms such as “fanciful doubt” or “imagined doubt” or “manufactured doubt.” The fact that these instructions have survived appellate challenge does not mean that they have been approved by the appellate courts; it only means that they have escaped condemnation.3
¶ 6 When the jury asked for amplification of the reasonable doubt charge, the trial judge repeated generally the same language he used the first time. Because of the difficulty with the concept of reasonable doubt and convoluted language of the standard instruction on reasonable doubt, he followed up with an example, over objection to any example after the judge described what he was going to use. I agree that it is a very reasonable idea to give an example. However, it is important that the example be a good one. The example of the parents contemplating sending their child to private school is a good one. Some of the standard examples — buying a house but seeing a stain on the ceiling, needing an operation but not going through with it until one gets a second opinion, are also good examples. The one created by the trial judge is not.
¶7 I believe the appellant is correct when he states in his brief that the trial court’s analogy is confusing, “and would leave even those with advanced knowledge of the law wondering ‘just what is the Commonwealth’s burden?’ The court’s anecdote served to do nothing more than to obfuscate the applicable burden of proof from the jury, and suggest a more lenient standard such as preponderance of the evidence.” (Appellant’s brief, p. 13.)
¶ 8 Certainly one does not want to take a chance on crossing the street in the face of a red light with cars whizzing by. This is not a “reasonable doubt” that one might get hit by the car — it is practically certain. Likewise, crossing in the middle of the night with no cars coming is hardly analogous to reasonable doubt — if one sees no cars coming, there is no doubt. The example has nothing to do with the concept or the standard charge, and only serves to confuse. Since the jury was confused by the standard language, reading it again does not “amplify” the instructions, as requested by the jury. The example not only fails to clear things up, but makes them more confusing.
¶ 9 Since this was a concern of the jury and was not rectified by the trial judge, I cannot say this could be considered harmless and, thus would reverse for a new trial on all charges.

. I cannot claim credit for this phrase, much as I would like to do so. It was coined by someone with language skills superior to mine. However, try as I may, I have not been able to find the source of these words.