CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Presumptions & Burden of Proof
......Burden of Proof
.........Criminal Matters
............Basic Rules & Definitions
 11 Cards On This Topic:
  • Criminal actions require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Reasonable doubt defined.
  • Party claiming another is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has burden of proof.
  • Party claiming another did not use requisite care has burden of proof.
  • Party claiming insanity has burden of proof.
  • Giving standard jury instructions did not dilute application of the constitutionally required reasonable doubt standard.
  • Former CALJIC 2.90, validity of which affirmed by USSC and Cal.S.Ct., does not unconstitutionally permit jurors to take into account moral considerations in determining guilt.
  • No need to shift normal burden of proof where P had ability to prove compensation to which it claimed entitlement; courts have at times altered normal allocation of burden of proof but such exceptions "are few, and narrow."
  • Omission of CALJIC No. 2.90 was not federal constit’l error where instructions given adequately apprised jury of reasonable doubt std and due process requirement that guilt be adjudged solely on evidence presented.
  • Trial court's "tinkering" with statutory definition of reasonable doubt, no matter how well intentioned, lowered DA's burden of proof below due process requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Reversal required where D’s substantial rights affected by an instruction on reasonable doubt that actually reduced DA’s burden to a preponderance of the evidence.


    •