Spitznas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Spitznas v. State

1983 OK CR 108, 666 P.2d 1307, 1983 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 289

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 29, 1983

DocketF-82-408

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1983 OK CR 108 (Spitznas v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spitznas v. State, 1983 OK CR 108, 666 P.2d 1307, 1983 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 289 (Okla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Douglas Anthony Spitznas, appellant, was charged and tried in the District Court of Garfield County, Case No. CRF-80-398, for the offenses of Rape in the First Degree, and sodomy. He was convicted by a jury on January 8, 1982, and was sentenced to ten (10) years’ imprisonment for the first degree rape and to five (5) years for the offense of sodomy.

In his sole assignment of error, the appellant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury concerning the definition of “reasonable doubt.” The appellant cites In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), which held that the constitutional standard of proof in criminal cases is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We find this standard was employed by the trial court. There is no constitutional requirement that the definition of “reasonable doubt” be given to the jury. The law in Oklahoma concerning the definition of reasonable doubt is well settled. In Johnson v. State, 632 P.2d 1231 (Okl.Cr.1981), the court held that the phrase “reasonable doubt” is self-explanatory and definitions of it do not clarify its meaning but only tend to confuse *1308 the jury. Templer v. State, 494 P.2d 667 (Okl.Cr.1972); Pannell v. State, 640 P.2d 568, 570 (Okl.Cr.1982).

We are of the opinion that the appellant received the proper instruction from the trial court; the judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

Douglas Anthony Spitznas, appellant, was charged and tried in the District Court of Garfield County, Case No. CRF-80-398, for the offenses of Rape in the First Degree, and sodomy. He was convicted by a jury on January 8, 1982, and was sentenced to ten (10) years’ imprisonment for the first degree rape and to five (5) years for the offense of sodomy.

In his sole assignment of error, the appellant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury concerning the definition of “reasonable doubt.” The appellant cites In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), which held that the constitutional standard of proof in criminal cases is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We find this standard was employed by the trial court. There is no constitutional requirement that the definition of “reasonable doubt” be given to the jury. The law in Oklahoma concerning the definition of reasonable doubt is well settled. In Johnson v. State, 632 P.2d 1231 (Okl.Cr.1981), the court held that the phrase “reasonable doubt” is self-explanatory and definitions of it do not clarify its meaning but only tend to confuse *1308 the jury. Templer v. State, 494 P.2d 667 (Okl.Cr.1972); Pannell v. State, 640 P.2d 568, 570 (Okl.Cr.1982).

We are of the opinion that the appellant received the proper instruction from the trial court; the judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1983 OK CR 108, 666 P.2d 1307, 1983 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spitznas-v-state-oklacrimapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack