Legal Opinion · Dissent

Malone v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 29, 1996No. 20A05-9410-CR-398Published

1DissentFriedlander, Judge

I respectfully dissent with respect to the majority's view that the trial court's final instruction using the terms "moral certainty" in defining reasonable doubt did not constitute fundamental error.

In Tobias v. State (1995), Ind.App. 659 N.E.2d 246, this court determined that such an instruction denies a defendant his right to due process and requires reversal. See also Winegeart v. State (1994), Ind.App., 644 N.E.2d 180. As in Tobias, the instruction here failed to present an objective standard by which the jurors were to judge Malone's guilt. In my view, the challenged instruction clearly…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Winegeart v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Tobias v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API