Senate Bill No. 400–Committee on Judiciary

March 12, 1999

____________

Referred to Committee on Judiciary

 

SUMMARY—Revises jury instruction that defines reasonable doubt in criminal actions. (BDR 14-1533)

FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No.

Effect on the State or on Industrial Insurance: No.

~

EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted. Green numbers along left margin indicate location on the printed bill (e.g., 5-15 indicates page 5, line 15).

 

AN ACT relating to criminal actions; revising the jury instruction that defines reasonable doubt in criminal actions; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1-1 Section 1. NRS 175.211 is hereby amended to read as follows:

1-2 175.211 1. [A reasonable doubt is one based on reason. It is not mere

1-3 possible doubt, but is such a doubt as would govern or control a person in

1-4 the more weighty affairs of life. If the minds of the jurors, after the entire

1-5 comparison and consideration of all the evidence, are in such a condition

1-6 that they can say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge,

1-7 there is not a reasonable doubt. Doubt to be reasonable must be actual, not

1-8 mere possibility or speculation.

1-9 2. No other definition of reasonable doubt may be given by the court to

1-10 juries in criminal actions in this state.] In any criminal action that is tried

1-11 before a jury to determine the guilt of the defendant:

1-12 (a) The court is not required to give any instruction that defines or

1-13 explains reasonable doubt, unless such an instruction is requested by the

1-14 jury or a party.

1-15 (b) If the court gives an instruction that defines or explains

1-16 reasonable doubt, the following instruction must be given to the jury, and

1-17 the court shall not give any other instruction that defines or explains

1-18 reasonable doubt:

2-1 The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty

2-2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors

2-3 in civil cases, where you were told that it is only necessary to prove

2-4 that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the

2-5 prosecution’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be

2-6 beyond a reasonable doubt.

2-7 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly

2-8 convinced of the defendant’s guilt. There are very few things in this

2-9 world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases

2-10 the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt.

2-11 If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly

2-12 convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you

2-13 must find the defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there

2-14 is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty, you must give the

2-15 defendant the benefit of the doubt and find the defendant not guilty.

2-16 2. In any penalty hearing conducted before a jury in which the

2-17 prosecution is required by the constitution or laws of this state or the

2-18 Constitution of the United States to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the

2-19 existence of any aggravating circumstance, allegation or other matter:

2-20 (a) The court is not required to give any instruction that defines or

2-21 explains reasonable doubt, unless such an instruction is requested by the

2-22 jury or a party.

2-23 (b) If the court gives an instruction that defines or explains

2-24 reasonable doubt, the instruction that is given to the jury must be, to the

2-25 extent practicable, substantially similar in form and content to the

2-26 instruction set forth in paragraph (b) of subsection 1, and the court shall

2-27 not give any other instruction that defines or explains reasonable doubt.

2-28 3. The provisions of this section apply to all proceedings related to a

2-29 criminal action or penalty hearing in which one or more prospective

2-30 jurors, regular jurors or alternate jurors are examined, selected or

2-31 present.

2-32 Sec. 2. The amendatory provisions of this act apply to all criminal

2-33 actions and penalty hearings in which the initial examination of prospective

2-34 jurors for the criminal action or penalty hearing commences on or after July

2-35 1, 1999, regardless of when the offense was committed.

2-36 Sec. 3. This act becomes effective on July 1, 1999.

~