Court Opinion

ID: 9855210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:21:06.512242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:43.660588
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with all except the interpretation of the judge’s charge on reasonable doubt, which is ruled on in Division 3. In the sentence, the judge distinguished between “the evidence,” that is, the body of evidence, and “the testimony of the defendant alone,” that is, only the defendant’s testimony. The judge was making plain to the jury that regardless of all the other evidence which might point to guilt, and even if the jury rejected the other evidence defendant presented, if the defendant’s own testimony raises a reasonable doubt, the jury must find him not guilty. In other words, the defendant himself, by what he says, may create a reasonable doubt in your mind.
That charge is very favorable to defendant, and I do agree that it was not error. Considering this single charge, or the charge as a whole, it means the same thing.
*465Decided May 2, 1996
Reconsideration denied May 20, 1996
Daniel B. Kane, for appellant.
Mario L. Young, pro se.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Carl R Greenberg, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.