McCullough v. State
657 P.2d 1157, 99 Nev. 72, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 391 (1983)
Rule of Law:
The concept of reasonable doubt is inherently qualitative and cannot be quantified; attempts by a trial court to define it using numerical scales or to supplement the statutory definition constitute reversible error, particularly when such quantifications effectively lower the prosecution's burden of proof.
Facts:
- McCullough was found in possession of marijuana.
- McCullough was also found in possession of a stolen 1974 Chevrolet 'Luv' pickup truck.
- During the selection of jurors (voir dire), the trial judge attempted to illustrate the legal concept of 'reasonable doubt' using a numerical scale of zero to ten.
- The judge placed the standard for civil trials at just over five on this scale.
- The judge explicitly described reasonable doubt as being about a 'seven and a half' on the scale.
- Following the numerical comparison, the judge provided a jury instruction stating that the defendant's guilt did not need to be established to an 'absolute certainty.'
- Defense counsel did not object to the judge's numerical characterizations or the supplemental instruction at the time they were given.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged McCullough with possession of a controlled substance and possession of stolen property in the state district court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial where the instructions in question were given.
- The jury returned a verdict finding McCullough guilty on both charges.
- McCullough appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial judge commit reversible error and violate a defendant's due process rights by defining 'reasonable doubt' to a jury using a numerical scale of 7.5 out of 10 and supplementing the statutory definition with non-statutory language?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The court held that quantifying reasonable doubt with a numerical score like 7.5 out of 10 is reversible error because it impermissibly lowers the prosecution's burden of proof and violates the statutory mandate. The court reasoned that reasonable doubt is a qualitative concept requiring a 'subjective state of near certitude,' which is fundamentally incompatible with a quantitative scale. The court noted that while a non-statutory instruction might be harmless in isolation (per prior precedent), combining it with a numerical quantification creates a cumulative effect that confuses the jury and likely leads them to believe a 75% probability of guilt is sufficient for conviction. Consequently, despite the lack of objection at trial, the error was of constitutional magnitude, necessitating a reversal.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict adherence to statutory definitions of reasonable doubt in Nevada (NRS 175.211) and aligns with federal constitutional standards established in In re Winship. By explicitly rejecting the '7.5' scale, the court draws a hard line against the mathematical quantification of legal standards, protecting the defendant's right to a high burden of proof. The ruling significantly limits the discretion of trial judges to 'ad lib' or create metaphors for reasonable doubt, establishing that such attempts are not merely discouraged but can be fatal to a conviction. It serves as a warning to lower courts that even if counsel fails to object, errors defining the burden of proof may be reviewed as constitutional errors.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: McCullough v. State (1983)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"