Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2026Concerning the definition of reasonable doubt specifically, the Supreme Court has held that trial courts are not obligated to give any particular definition, and a reviewing court will find error only if the instruction given affirmatively “misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required.” See State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 38-39 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992) (“Unless a reasonable doubt instruction misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser 66 State v. Melling degree of proof than that required, the court will not 2026Concerning the definition of reasonable doubt specifically, the Supreme Court has held that trial courts are not obligated to give any particular definition, and a reviewing court will find error only if the instruction given affirmatively “misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required.” See State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 38-39 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992) (“Unless a reasonable doubt instruction misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser 66 State v. Melling degree of proof than that required, the court will not | 1 | 4 |
Williams v. Oregongreen2 sentences2026Concerning the definition of reasonable doubt specifically, the Supreme Court has held that trial courts are not obligated to give any particular definition, and a reviewing court will find error only if the instruction given affirmatively “misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required.” See State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 38-39 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992) (“Unless a reasonable doubt instruction misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser 66 State v. Melling degree of proof than that required, the court will not 2025The Supreme Court has explained that “[u]nless a reasonable doubt instruction mis- leads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required, the court will not find error.” State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 38 , 828 P2d 1006 , cert den, 506 US 858 (1992). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., State v. Robinson, [235 *207 Or 524, 528, 385 P2d 754 (1963)] (‘reasonable doubt’ is a term so commonly known and understood that it requires no embellishment); State of Oregon v. Monk, 199 Or 165, 193 , 260 P2d 474 (1953) (quoting People v. Klein, 305 Ill 141[, 137 NE 145 (1922),] that ‘[t]here is no more lucid definition of the term “reasonable doubt” than the term itself); State v. Morey, [ 25 Or 241, 257 , 35 P 655 (1894)] (reasonable doubt is within the comprehension of every person capable of understanding common English and further definition cannot make it plainer).” In this 1992If the instruction is correct as to the law and is not couched in phraseology which is, by chance, misleading, the court has committed no error in giving [the instruction].” State v. Robinson, supra, 235 Or at 527 Unless a reasonable doubt instruction misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required, the court will not find error. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pratt
green
2 sentences1993We are not persuaded by that argument. 5 In State v. Pratt, 316 Or 561, 576 , 853 P2d 827 (1993) (quoting State v. Williams, supra, 313 Or at 38 ), this court stated that “ ‘[ujnless a reasonable doubt instruction misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required, the court will not find error.’ ” In State v. Williams, supra, 313 Or at 39 , this court observed: “Many courts, including this one, have voiced agreement with [the] proposition [that the phrase ‘reasonable doubt’ is its own best explanation]. 1993We are not persuaded by that argument. 5 In State v. Pratt, 316 Or 561, 576 , 853 P2d 827 (1993) (quoting State v. Williams, supra, 313 Or at 38 ), this court stated that “ ‘[ujnless a reasonable doubt instruction misleads the jury to believe that it can convict on a lesser degree of proof than that required, the court will not find error.’ ” In State v. Williams, supra, 313 Or at 39 , this court observed: “Many courts, including this one, have voiced agreement with [the] proposition [that the phrase ‘reasonable doubt’ is its own best explanation]. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State of Oregon v. Monk
green
2 sentences1993See, e.g., State v. Robinson, [235 *207 Or 524, 528, 385 P2d 754 (1963)] (‘reasonable doubt’ is a term so commonly known and understood that it requires no embellishment); State of Oregon v. Monk, 199 Or 165, 193 , 260 P2d 474 (1953) (quoting People v. Klein, 305 Ill 141[, 137 NE 145 (1922),] that ‘[t]here is no more lucid definition of the term “reasonable doubt” than the term itself); State v. Morey, [ 25 Or 241, 257 , 35 P 655 (1894)] (reasonable doubt is within the comprehension of every person capable of understanding common English and further definition cannot make it plainer).” In this 1993See, e.g., State v. Robinson, [235 *207 Or 524, 528, 385 P2d 754 (1963)] (‘reasonable doubt’ is a term so commonly known and understood that it requires no embellishment); State of Oregon v. Monk, 199 Or 165, 193 , 260 P2d 474 (1953) (quoting People v. Klein, 305 Ill 141[, 137 NE 145 (1922),] that ‘[t]here is no more lucid definition of the term “reasonable doubt” than the term itself); State v. Morey, [ 25 Or 241, 257 , 35 P 655 (1894)] (reasonable doubt is within the comprehension of every person capable of understanding common English and further definition cannot make it plainer).” In this | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Klein
green
1 sentence1993See, e.g., State v. Robinson, [235 *207 Or 524, 528, 385 P2d 754 (1963)] (‘reasonable doubt’ is a term so commonly known and understood that it requires no embellishment); State of Oregon v. Monk, 199 Or 165, 193 , 260 P2d 474 (1953) (quoting People v. Klein, 305 Ill 141[, 137 NE 145 (1922),] that ‘[t]here is no more lucid definition of the term “reasonable doubt” than the term itself); State v. Morey, [ 25 Or 241, 257 , 35 P 655 (1894)] (reasonable doubt is within the comprehension of every person capable of understanding common English and further definition cannot make it plainer).” In this | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Morey
green
2 sentences1993See, e.g., State v. Robinson, [235 *207 Or 524, 528, 385 P2d 754 (1963)] (‘reasonable doubt’ is a term so commonly known and understood that it requires no embellishment); State of Oregon v. Monk, 199 Or 165, 193 , 260 P2d 474 (1953) (quoting People v. Klein, 305 Ill 141[, 137 NE 145 (1922),] that ‘[t]here is no more lucid definition of the term “reasonable doubt” than the term itself); State v. Morey, [ 25 Or 241, 257 , 35 P 655 (1894)] (reasonable doubt is within the comprehension of every person capable of understanding common English and further definition cannot make it plainer).” In this 1993See, e.g., State v. Robinson, [235 *207 Or 524, 528, 385 P2d 754 (1963)] (‘reasonable doubt’ is a term so commonly known and understood that it requires no embellishment); State of Oregon v. Monk, 199 Or 165, 193 , 260 P2d 474 (1953) (quoting People v. Klein, 305 Ill 141[, 137 NE 145 (1922),] that ‘[t]here is no more lucid definition of the term “reasonable doubt” than the term itself); State v. Morey, [ 25 Or 241, 257 , 35 P 655 (1894)] (reasonable doubt is within the comprehension of every person capable of understanding common English and further definition cannot make it plainer).” In this | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1992State v. Roberts, supra, 15 Or at 196-97 . 1992State v. Roberts, supra, 15 Or. at 196-97 , 13 P. 896 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.