Also known as: innocence · innocents · not guilty · presumption of innocence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A state of being free from guilt or legal fault. The condition supports the assumption that a defendant has not committed an offense when the prosecution fails to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ivy Ibarra stood trial for theft. The prosecution presented no evidence linking her to the missing funds. The court directed a verdict of acquittal because the state had not proved every element beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore assumed Ivy's innocence.
Ike Ingram represented the state at trial. During closing argument he began to state his personal belief in the accused's guilt. The judge sustained an objection because the rules prohibit a lawyer from expressing a personal opinion on the guilt or innocence of an accused.
Iris Irons accidentally struck Ira Irving with her car. Realizing Ira was now helpless in the roadway, Iris stopped and called for medical help. The court held Iris owed a duty of reasonable care to prevent further harm even though her initial conduct was innocent.
Ingrid Innes refused to enter any plea at arraignment. The judge immediately entered a plea of not guilty on her behalf and set the case for trial.
Iain Irons was convicted years earlier. After a pardon based on a finding of innocence, the prior conviction could not be used to impeach him at a later trial.
Imperial Motors called a key prosecution witness who had a juvenile adjudication. The defense sought to cross-examine about that record to show bias. The court permitted the inquiry because the Confrontation Clause required it to test the witness's credibility when guilt or innocence was at stake.
No. The prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of that proof the defendant's innocence is assumed and no burden shifts to the defense.
No. The rules forbid a lawyer from stating a personal opinion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused during trial.
Yes. When the actor knows or has reason to know the conduct has rendered another helpless and in danger of further harm, a duty arises to exercise reasonable care to prevent additional injury.
…to say that the end in view was not sufficient to justify the general rule of the ordinance, although some industries of an innocent character might fall within the proscribed class. It can not be said that the ordinance in this respect “passes the bounds of reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat.”…