Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

283 N.C. 254

195 S.E.2d 304

State v. Mabery

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 11, 1973

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1973-04-11

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1978

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“When I speak of a reasonable doubt, I mean a substantial doubt as opposed to some flimsy doubt, a doubt based on reason and common sense arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented or lack of evidence as the case may be. It is not a vain, imaginary, or fanciful or mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt, nor is it a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel, or by your ingenuity not legitimately warranted by the evidence, nor is it a doubt born of a merciful inclination or disposition to permit the defendant to escape the penalty of the law or one prompted by sympathy for him or anyone connected with him. If, after weighing and considering all of the evidence, you are fully satisfied and entirely convinced of the defendant’s guilt, then you would be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if you do have any doubt based on reason and common sense, arising from the evidence in the case, or lack of evidence as to any facts necessary to constitute guilt and cannot say that you have an abiding faith to a moral certainty in the defendant’s guilt, then you would indeed have a reasonable doubt, and it would be your duty to give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and to find him not guilty-”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 37 N.C. App. 18 - State v. Staley

““The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in a case filed on the eleventh day of April, 1973, a recent case, has attempted to again define reasonable doubt. The Court says this: The phrase reasonable doubt means just what the words imply. It is a doubt based upon reason arising from a thorough and impartial consideration of all of the evidence in the case or lack of evidence as the case may be. “This, of course, is a criminal case in which reasonable doubt is being defined. It says this: Neither should you go outside the evidence to imagine doubt to justify an acquittal. “The Court would instruct you that you shouldn’t go outside of the evidence in this case to imagine doubt to render a verdict in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 20 N.C. App. 559 - Searcy Ex Rel. Schiro v. Justice

Relies on State v. Bryant · State v. Phillip · State v. Hammonds

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-04-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The sole question presented for decision is whether there is prejudicial error in the trial judge’s additional instructions on reasonable doubt.

¶2 Counsel for defendant correctly concedes that the court’s original instructions were ample and free from error. State v. Phillip, 261 N.C. 263, 134 S.E. 2d 386; State v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133.

¶3 After the case had been submitted to the jury, the foreman of the jury requested additional instructions on reasonable doubt. In answer to this request Judge Cohoon additionally charged:

“I will preface that instruction by saying that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until the contrary, that is, his guilt is proved to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the guilt of the defendant has been proven, he is entitled to be acquitted. The State does not have to prove the charge beyond all possible doubt before a conviction can be had. But the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before you can convict. The phrase reasonable doubt means just what the words imply. It is a doubt based upon reason, arising from a thorough and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case, or lack of evidence as the case may be. It is that state of mind in which you do not feel an abiding conviction amounting to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. While you cannot convict the defendant on mere surmise or conjecture, neither should you go outside the evidence to imagine doubt to justify an acquittal. If, after careful deliberation, you are *256 convinced to a moral certainty that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, then you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, not. . .

¶4 A trial judge is not required to define the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” unless specifically requested to do so. However, when he undertakes to do so the definition should be substantially in accord with definitions approved by this Court. State v. Flippin, 280 N.C. 682, 186 S.E. 2d 917; State v. Hammonds, supra.

¶5 Judge Cohoon’s additional charge on reasonable doubt is substantially in accord with definitions heretofore approved by this Court. State v. Bryant, 282 N.C. 92, 191 S.E. 2d 745; State v. Flippin, supra; State v. Hammond, supra; State v. Brackett, 218 N.C. 369, 11 S.E. 2d 146; State v. Schoolfield, 184 N.C. 721, 114 S.E. 466.

¶6 There was no error in the trial judge’s additional instructions on reasonable doubt.

¶7 We have carefully examined this entire record and find no prejudicial error.

¶8 No error.

/283/nc/254 · .json · Public domain