Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Portillo

Arizona Supreme Court
193 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 73, 898 P.2d 970, 182 Ariz. 592 (1995)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Arizona trial courts are legally required to define "reasonable doubt" in all criminal cases using a specific, uniform jury instruction to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the burden of proof.


Facts:

  • Defendants Martin Portillo and Mario Tercero were charged with various crimes in separate, unrelated incidents.
  • During their respective trials, the prosecution sought to prove the defendants' guilt.
  • The trial judges provided the juries with instructions that included a definition of the term "reasonable doubt" based on the RAJI 5 standard.
  • Both defendants objected to the trial courts' attempts to define "reasonable doubt," arguing against the specific language used.
  • The juries applied these instructions to the evidence presented during the proceedings.

Procedural Posture:

  • Tercero was convicted of crimes in the trial court.
  • Tercero appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, challenging the jury instruction.
  • The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Tercero's conviction.
  • Portillo was convicted of crimes in the trial court.
  • Portillo appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
  • The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed Portillo's conviction on other grounds but recommended that trial courts stop defining reasonable doubt in the future.
  • Both Tercero and the State (in the Portillo case) petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
  • The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and consolidated the cases.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Are Arizona trial courts required to instruct juries on the specific definition of "reasonable doubt," and if so, what mandatory language must be used?


Opinions:

Majority - Feldman

Yes, the Court held that trial judges must define reasonable doubt in all future cases to prevent juror confusion and ensure uniform justice. Chief Justice Feldman reasoned that while the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly require a definition, the concept of "reasonable doubt" is the decisive difference between criminal and civil liability and is often misunderstood by lay jurors. The Court rejected the argument that the term is self-evident or that defining it necessarily lowers the burden of proof. Citing empirical studies showing that undefined standards lead to juror confusion, the Court exercised its supervisory authority to mandate a specific instruction. This new standard, derived from the Federal Judicial Center, focuses on the jury being "firmly convinced" of guilt, thereby replacing previous inconsistent or optional definitions.



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant exercise of the Arizona Supreme Court's supervisory power, shifting the state from a permissive approach regarding reasonable doubt instructions to a mandatory one. By standardizing the definition, the Court aimed to eliminate the risk of structural error associated with defective definitions (such as those using "moral certainty") and to reduce the frequency of hung juries. The ruling emphasizes that legal terms of art, even those considered foundational, require clear, plain-language explanations to ensure that the constitutional right to due process is practically realized in the jury room.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Portillo (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"