The words reasonable doubt are nebulous to some people and to others reasonable doubt are words that have a crystal clear meaning. One of the first things I learned after law school is that the state’s burden of proof in finding a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t that difficult. In fact, the only thing the state really needs to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the testimony of one witness.
At a trial, the state must prove each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all doubt but rather is means ”a fair, honest doubt growing out of the evidence or lack of evidence. It is not merely an imaginary or possible doubt, but a doubt based on reason and common sense. A reasonable doubt is just that—a doubt that is reasonable, after a careful and considered examination of the facts and circumstances of this case.”
Every crime requires proof of several elements things in order for a person to be guilty. For example, to prove possession of cocaine, a prosecutor must introduce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for the following elements:
(1) the person has actual physical control of the [substance / thing] , as I do with the pen I’m now holding, or
(2) the person has the right to control the [substance / thing] , even though it is in a different room or place.
Possession may be sole, where one person alone possesses the [substance / thing] .
Possession may be joint, where two or more people each share possession.
It is not enough if the defendant merely knew about the [state substance or thing] ; the defendant possessed the [state substance or thing] only if [he / she] had control of it or the right to control it, either alone or together with someone else.
Crim. JI. 12.7.
Elements 1 many times is easy for the state to prove. If I had cocaine in my pocket, it is pretty clear element 1 has been proven. Element 2 can be more difficult for the state to prove. Element 2 is usually shown by circumstantial evidence. Many times when a drug bust is being administered by police, drugs are not found on the accused. The drug may be sitting on the counter or on a table. The state could argue element number 2 is fulfilled using the theory of constructive possession.