The Fourth Appellate District affirmed a judgment with directions. In the published portion of its opinion, the court held that the trial court’s explanation of the concept of “abiding conviction” did not undermine the jury’s understanding of the reasonable doubt standard of proof.
Following a late night altercation outside someone’s home, Roman Muniz was charged with vandalism exceeding $400 and assault. At the beginning of Muniz’s jury trial, the trial court instructed prospective jurors regarding the meaning of reasonable doubt. The court instructed that reasonable doubt “leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge …. What does that mean in plain English, abiding conviction? Jurors have to have an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. It means a long-lasting belief when you come to a verdict you will be comfortable with it the day you do it, two months or a year from now. That’s abiding conviction.”
