Court Opinion

ID: 9492911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:53:21.513262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:33.204507
License: Public Domain

concurring:
I concur in Judge Ervin’s opinion. When a criminal jury requests the district court to define reasonable doubt, the district court must have discretion to decide whether to provide such a definition. Should the district court determine that a definition of reasonable doubt is necessary to remove jury confusion about the proper standard of proof, I believe that the definitions suggested by the dissenters would be adequate. The mere act of a jury requesting a definition of reasonable doubt, however, does not alone demonstrate jury confusion and there is no evidence in this case from which to infer that the jury applied a constitutionally inadequate standard of proof. Cf. Weeks v. Angelone, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 727, 732-34, 145 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (explaining that the jury’s re*700quest for clarification of an instruction was insufficient to demonstrate that the jury applied an incorrect legal standard where the trial court referred the jury back to the original, constitutionally adequate instruction).