CALCRIM No. 103. Reasonable Doubt

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF

103.Reasonable Doubt

I will now explain the presumption of innocence and the People’s burden

of proof. The defendant[s] (has/have) pleaded not guilty to the charge[s].

The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant[s] is

not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the

defendant[s] just because (he/she/they) (has/have) been arrested, charged

with a crime, or brought to trial.

A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This

presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must prove something,

I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt [unless I

specifically tell you otherwise].

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an

abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not

eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some

possible or imaginary doubt.

In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a

reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all the

evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless the

evidence proves the defendant[s] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (he/

she/they) (is/are) entitled to an acquittal and you must find (him/her/

them) not guilty.

New January 2006; Revised June 2007

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the presumption of innocence and

the state’s burden of proof before deliberations. (People v. Vann (1974) 12 Cal.3d

220, 225-227 [115 Cal.Rptr. 352, 524 P.2d 824]; People v. Soldavini (1941) 45

Cal.App.2d 460, 463 [114 P.2d 415]; People v. Phillips (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 952,

956-958 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 532].) This instruction is included in this section for the

convenience of judges who wish to instruct on this point during voir dire or before

testimony begins.

If the court will be instructing that the prosecution must prove something by a

preponderance of the evidence, give the bracketed phrase “unless I specifically tell

you otherwise.”

AUTHORITY

• Instructional Requirements. Pen. Code, §§ 1096, 1096a; People v. Freeman

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503-504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249]; Victor v.

Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 16-17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583]; Lisenbee

v. Henry (9th Cir. 1999) 166 F.3d 997.

• Previous Version of CALCRIM 103 Upheld. People v. Reyes (2007) 151

Cal.App.4th 1491, 1496 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 777].

• Reference to Elements Not Required. People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th

1082, 1088-1089 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 186].

COMMENTARY

This instruction is based directly on Penal Code section 1096. The primary changes

are a reordering of concepts and a definition of reasonable doubt stated in the

affirmative rather than in the negative. The instruction also refers to the jury’s duty

to impartially compare and consider all the evidence. (See Victor v. Nebraska (1994)

511 U.S. 1, 16-17 [114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583].) The appellate courts have

urged the trial courts to exercise caution in modifying the language of section 1096

to avoid error in defining reasonable doubt. (See People v. Freeman (1994) 8

Cal.4th 450, 503-504 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249]; People v. Garcia (1975)

54 Cal.App.3d 61 [126 Cal.Rptr. 275].) The instruction includes all the concepts

contained in section 1096 and substantially tracks the statutory language.

SECONDARY SOURCES

5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Criminal Trial, §§ 624,

716-717, 720-722.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 83,

Evidence, § 83.03[1], Ch. 85, Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[2][a][i],

85.04[2][a] (Matthew Bender).

PRETRIAL CALCRIM No. 103

Page last reviewed May 2023