Proving Sex Crimes Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

In any criminal prosecution, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard of proof applies to all elements of the alleged crime. Unfortunately, prosecutors sometimes try to get around this standard, particularly in sex crimes cases where the emotional nature of the charges can undermine constitutional guarantees of due process.

Court Tosses Sex Crimes Conviction Over “Logically Impossible” Jury Instructions

A California appeals court recently held that a judge improperly instructed a jury in a sex crimes case, which unconstitutionally lowered the prosecutor’s burden of proof and resulted in a tainted conviction. The defendant was tried on three charges of “committing a lewd act against a child under the age of 14.” Three separate accusers testified against the defendant at trial.

After the close of evidence, the judge instructed the jury as to the law. The judge said the jury should consider “whether the defendant committed any other sexual crimes, whether charged or uncharged.” This is a typical instruction in California, where juries are told to examine evidence of an accused defendant’s “propensity to commit sexual offenses.”

The California Supreme Court has previously held that these “propensity” offenses may include “sexual offenses charged in the current prosecution.” In other words, the prosecution could use the first accuser’s testimony to prove the defendant’s “propensity” to commit the sex crime alleged by the second accuser, and so forth. And the judge instructed the jury to apply a “preponderance of the evidence” standard when assessing the “propensity” offenses, not the stricter “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard normally required for conviction.

The jury ultimately convicted the defendant on all three counts. The California Fifth District Court of Appeal threw out the verdict, however, based on what it held was the trial judge’s bad instruction. “In effect,” the appeals court explained, “the instruction given here told the jury it should first consider whether the offenses charged in counts 1, 2, and 3 had been established by a preponderance of the evidence, while holding its ultimate decision on the same offenses in suspension.” This was “logically impossible,” the appeals court said, as “the jury was required to decide whether the preponderance finding showed a propensity, and whether this propensity, in combination with the other evidence, proved those offenses a second time, this time beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Need Help From a San Jose Sex Crimes Lawyer?

The Fifth District’s decision is apparently the first time a California appeals court has addressed this particular issue. As the Fifth District noted, its decision will affect the model jury instructions in future sex crimes cases, at least for trial courts within its jurisdiction. It is unclear whether or when other courts in the state will re-examine their own jury instructions in light of the Fifth District’s decision.

If you have been charged with a sex crime, it is essential you work with an experienced San Jose criminal defense attorney who will ensure that prosecutors and courts respect your right to a fair trial. Contact Wesley Schroeder, Attorney at Law, and speak with a lawyer right away.

Source:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F069940.PDF