Also known as: beyond reasonable doubt · reasonable doubt
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of proof in criminal proceedings that requires the prosecution to establish every element of the charged offense to a degree of certainty that leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational factfinder. The standard protects the presumption of innocence by directing acquittal whenever the evidence permits a reasonable person to entertain doubt about guilt.
MetroBuild contracted to purchase land from O'Hara. A title search disclosed an apparently forged deed in the chain of title from twenty-five years earlier. MetroBuild refused to close. Because the forgery created a substantial risk that a third party held superior title, the defect left reasonable doubt about ownership and rendered the title unmarketable.
The government charged Oliver with conspiracy based on recorded conversations and expense reports that vendors described as ordinary hospitality. The materials permitted an equally plausible innocent interpretation. Because the evidence did not eliminate every reasonable doubt about the existence of a corrupt agreement, the district court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Bernice was acquitted of homicide but the estate sought to disqualify her from an annuity under the slayer rule. In the probate proceeding the estate introduced an eyewitness account of the argument and Bernice's assault conviction. The civil court applied the preponderance standard and found Bernice responsible for the killing, because the criminal acquittal did not preclude a civil finding under the lower burden.
Bernard struck an assailant with a heavy object after the assailant lunged with a knife. The blow caused permanent loss of vision in one eye. Because the resulting harm differed in kind from ordinary bodily injury and carried a substantial risk of fatal consequences, the force used was not privileged under the self-defense privilege.
A fourteen-year-old was charged in juvenile court with acts that would constitute theft if committed by an adult. The only evidence consisted of ambiguous text messages and blurry surveillance images. Because the prosecution failed to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, due process required that the adjudication be vacated.
Fisher was tried for first-degree murder. The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution must prove purpose, malice, premeditation, and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction correctly required the government to satisfy the highest standard on each essential element before the jury could return a conviction.
The prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Model Penal Code section 1.12(a) states that no person may be convicted unless each element is proved to that degree and that innocence is assumed in the absence of such proof.
Yes. Due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt when a juvenile is charged with conduct that would be criminal if committed by an adult, as held in In re Winship.
A civil proceeding to determine slayer status uses the preponderance standard rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. A final criminal conviction for intentional killing nevertheless conclusively establishes slayer status in the civil case.
A rational factfinder cannot conclude that guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must therefore grant a motion for judgment of acquittal when the evidence leaves reasonable doubt about an essential element.
Yes. Any fact that increases a mandatory minimum sentence is an element that must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
…with violation of this statute enjoys ordinary criminal-law safeguards such as the requirements of an indictment and of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These safeguards are not available to the defendant in a civil action. The judgment awarded in this casewithout the need for any proof of actual pecuniary losswas one thousand times…