Adding some additional notes, curious if anyone has any thoughts. A little over 1 week ago Idaho Supreme Court issued an Order for all lower Courts within the state new standard jury instructions for death penalty cases. They revised several portions of the previous instructions and included language in their Order that cases with applicable charges (facing the death penalty) should follow this “effective immediately”. I noticed Attorney Prior also said those words in his objection today.
I went to look & part of what Supreme Court revised was the definition and details on what “reasonable doubt” is. Prior wanted to note his objection and wished the jury would be instructed on the language per the recent Supreme Court order. The Judge denied doing that, saying he didn’t want to cause confusion or change definitions mid trial.
What could this possibly mean in an appellate sense?
If the lower Court instructed the jury on a definition, one that is arguably fundamental for the jury’s deliberations, using a different definition of “reasonable doubt”, could that be claimed as part of an error made by the lower Court?
Reading the plain text of the revised instructions in their Order, it is not just a few word changes, it is entire lines revised that explain reasonable doubt. Here’s to hoping there is something the State can argue on appeal for why, even if the Court did not follow the Order of the Supreme Court, that it didn’t affect the verdicts in any way.
Link for reading
Idaho Death Penalty Criminal Jury Instructions | Supreme Court