Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Ind. 170

Arnold v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1864

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1864-11-15

<p>Reasonable Doubt.—A reasonable doubt exists when the evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the judgment of the truth of a proposition with such certainty that a prudent man would feel safe in acting upon it in his own important affairs.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1954

13 state decisions

601864187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Erazer, J.

¶1This was a prosecution for assault and battery. There was a jury trial, and conviction below.

¶2The court below, (an attorney occupying the bench to try the cause) instructed the jury as follows: “A reasonable doubt as to any material fact must be such a doubt that convinces you that the fact does not exist. Perhaps in. this I may have given you the law a little too strong. I will modify it by saying this, If there is a reasonable doubt that arises in your minds, that convinces you that the fact is not as charged, you may acquit.”

¶3This was an error.. A doubt never convinces. A reasonable doubt exists, when the evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the judgment of the truth of a proposition, with such certainty that a prudent man would feel safe in acting upon it in his own important affairs. The evidence is in the record, and is of such a nature as to have required a proper charge to the jury upon this subject.

¶4The judgment below is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

/23/ind/170 · .json · Public domain