McKinley v. State, 877S590
Decision Date | 29 August 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 877S590,877S590 |
Citation | 379 N.E.2d 968,269 Ind. 240 |
Parties | Michael James McKINLEY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Noble R. Pearcy, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert J. Black, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The defendant, Michael McKinley, was convicted by a jury of two counts of commission of a felony while armed, to-wit: robbery, Ind.Code § 35-12-1-1 (Burns 1975). He was sentenced to thirty years in prison. This direct appeal raises only the issues of the correctness of the trial court's reasonable doubt instruction and the refusal of the reasonable doubt instruction tendered by the defendant.
The trial court did not give the standard reasonable doubt instruction but gave the following preliminary instruction number 5a:
Defendant contends that this instruction is erroneous because it stresses only the "doubt" aspect of the rule and does not set out the "degree of certainty" needed to overcome a reasonable doubt. Defendant also tendered his own instruction on reasonable doubt which was based on the long approved language of Baker v. State, (1956) 236 Ind. 55, 138 N.E.2d 641, and which he contends more adequately covers the issue of "degree of certainty."
The defendant's contention is essentially that the court's instruction is not complete. However, the last paragraph of this instruction contains several guidelines for the degree of certainty necessary to overcome reasonable doubt. It suggests to a juror that he must reach some firm degree of certainty of the guilt of the defendant before he can say he is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
This Court has recently held that while it is wiser to employ the conventional language defining reasonable doubt, it is not only that language which will adequately instruct the jury. Brown v. State, (1977) Ind., 360 N.E.2d 830. It is true, as petitioner points out, that the Court of Appeals, Second District, has held that instructions on reasonable doubt must address both the doubt and the degree of certainty needed to find reasonable doubt....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bryan v. State
...3 and 4. It is not error to refuse instructions when the subject has been adequately covered in other instructions. McKinley v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 240, 379 N.E.2d 968. We hold there was no error in giving appellant's Tendered Final Instruction No. 1 in its modified Appellant claims the ......
-
Gorman, Matter of, 1275S359
... ... of the members of society, and the ethical standards applicable to members of the Bar of this State. Under these circumstances, this Court must conclude that in order to preserve the integrity of ... ...
-
McKinley v. State, 779S206
...II, and the court determined that the sentences should run consecutively. These convictions were affirmed by this Court. McKinley v. State, (1978) Ind., 379 N.E.2d 968. The evidence in the record of the original trial indicates that petitioner and an accomplice entered the Norwaldo Pharmacy......
-
Reasonable Doubt: an Overview and Examination of Jury Instructions in Colorado
...906 (1990); Avery v. State, 514 P.2d 637, 642-43 (Alaska 1973); State v. Tucker, 629 A.2d 1067, 1084 (Conn. 1993); McKinley v. State, 379 N.E.2d 968, 969 1978); State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554, 560 (Iowa 1986); State v. Uffelman, 626 A.2d 340, 342 (Me. 1993), cert. denied, Uffelman v. Maine......