State of North Carolina v. Reginald Patterson
439 S.E.2d 578 (1994)
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction defining proof beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of 'moral certainty' does not violate the Due Process Clause unless it is combined with other language, such as 'grave uncertainty' or 'actual substantial doubt,' that suggests a higher degree of doubt is required for acquittal.
Facts:
- On February 28, 1992, Reginald Patterson and his girlfriend, Tonya Renee Mitchell, had a verbal altercation at a store after she found him there.
- Mitchell insulted Patterson in front of his brothers before driving back to their shared residence.
- Patterson followed Mitchell home in his own vehicle, retrieving his 20-gauge shotgun from the car upon arrival.
- He entered the bedroom where Mitchell was packing her clothes to leave, and while he was holding the shotgun, it discharged, fatally wounding her in the head.
- Patterson then drove to Thelma Lake and threw the shotgun into the water.
- Shortly thereafter, Patterson changed his mind about fleeing, returned to town, found a police officer, and confessed that he had shot his girlfriend.
- Patterson gave inconsistent accounts of the shooting, first stating the gun went off when he threw it on the bed, and later that it discharged as he brought it down from the air.
- While in jail, Patterson asked an inmate to find the shotgun and destroy it.
Procedural Posture:
- Reginald Patterson was indicted for first-degree murder in a North Carolina trial court.
- At trial, Patterson's request for specific jury instructions on reasonable doubt and accident was denied in the form he proposed.
- The trial court denied Patterson's motion to dismiss the charge for insufficiency of the evidence.
- A jury convicted Patterson of first-degree murder.
- The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
- Patterson (appellant) appealed his conviction directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, arguing that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, its denial of the motion to dismiss, and in handling a discovery violation by the State (appellee).
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 jury instruction that defines 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' as being 'satisfied to a moral certainty' violate the Due Process Clause when it is not accompanied by other potentially diluting phrases like 'grave uncertainty' or 'actual substantial doubt'?
Opinions:
Majority - Whichard, Justice
No, a jury instruction defining 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' as being 'satisfied to a moral certainty' does not violate the Due Process Clause when it is not accompanied by other potentially diluting phrases. The court distinguished this case from Cage v. Louisiana, where the U.S. Supreme Court found an instruction unconstitutional because it equated reasonable doubt with 'grave uncertainty' and 'actual substantial doubt' in conjunction with the 'moral certainty' language. The court reasoned that it is the combination of these terms that creates a reasonable likelihood that a jury would apply a standard of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause. Absent the additional constitutionally offensive terms, the use of 'moral certainty' alone does not create a reasonable likelihood of juror confusion, but only a possibility, which is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Cage v. Louisiana within North Carolina jurisprudence. It establishes a critical distinction, holding that the phrase 'moral certainty' is not per se unconstitutional in a reasonable doubt instruction. The ruling provides a bright-line rule for trial courts: the constitutional infirmity arises from coupling 'moral certainty' with other terms that lower the government's burden of proof by inflating the level of doubt needed for acquittal. This precedent narrows the grounds for challenging jury instructions on this basis and emphasizes that the instruction must be viewed in its entirety rather than focusing on isolated phrases.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State of North Carolina v. Reginald Patterson (1994)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"