Cited by

–78 (1991); –97 (1995); ¶ 43 (2019); ¶¶ 11, 14–15, 104 ¶ 16 (2021).

(Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is firmly convincing.).

The document included an instruction on the State’s burden to prove the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt

nse is error.” (citing Avila in addressing claimed error in accomplice liability jury instruction); -21 (App. 1994) (citing Avila in holding inadequate jury “instruction on the elements necessary for a conviction for conspiracy” was fundamental error)

(“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.”(emphasis added)); see also Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993) (“It would not satisfy the Sixth Amendment to have a jury determine that the defendant is probably guilty .

D. Portillo Instruction ¶16

¶19 Contrary to the defense’s suggestion, Johnson’s testimony is not undermined by the mere fact of him being an informant, or his “trying to avoid a lengthy prison term cooperating with police.” The jury could have, for example, undoubtedly believed Johnson would have benefited 3 vacated in part on other grounds

that a verdict might have been different had the error not been committed.’” (citations omitted)); -49, -97 (1996) 3

tems to minors, all involving his conduct with an 11-year-old daughter, V., between June 2009 and December 2010;1 and ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, for knowingly possessing child pornography in December 2010.2 He argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct, P.2d 970 (1995), and he was deprived of a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct.

“[T]he Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the offense of which the defendant is charged.” Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 210 (1977)

-96, -74 (1995) (requiring the court to instruct the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt after the close of evidence).

(“Pursuant to our supervisory authority .

Forde contends that the phrases “firmly convinced” and “real possibility” in the instructions unconstitutionally permitted the jury to apply a lower standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” and have repeatedly rejected challenges to them, see, e.g., State v. Dann (Dann III), ¶ 65

Portillo Instruction ¶18 P.2d 970 (1995).

P.2d 970 (1995), dilutes and shifts the burden of proof in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

dilutes and shifts the burden of proof in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

hooting Jonathan similarly had kidnapped his girlfriend and her sister at gunpoint from their doorstep; that circumstantial evidence suggested Jonathan had confessed to Rebecca‟s mother; that Jonathan had admitted to having killed someone; 19 Although Machado challenges the reasonable doubt instruction given below, P.2d 970 (1995), and did not constitute error.

He contends the trial court’s sexual exploitation instructions to the jury were erroneous because they rendered the charges duplicitous and permitted the jury to reach potentially nonunanimous verdicts.1 and asserts he was entitled to an instruction on jury nullification.

Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction ¶16 P.2d 970 (1995), was structural error because it 14 improperly lowered the required standard of proof.