## Facts

- Michael D. Walker was prosecuted for participating in a drive-by shooting at an occupied residence that killed a child inside the home.
- The State charged Walker with first-degree felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, among related offenses.
- The trial court gave the standard Kansas pattern instruction on reasonable doubt.
- During deliberations, the jury asked for a clearer definition of “reasonable doubt.”
- Over the prosecutor’s objection but with defense counsel’s approval, the judge gave a supplemental explanation stating that reasonable doubt “is such a doubt as a juror is able to give a reason for.”
- The jury convicted Walker of first-degree felony murder and related offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court violated due process by supplementing the pattern reasonable-doubt instruction with language stating reasonable doubt is “such a doubt as a juror is able to give a reason for.”
2. Whether, considering the instructions as a whole, there was a reasonable likelihood the jury understood it could convict on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Walker’s convictions.
- The court concluded the supplemental reasonable-doubt language was unnecessary and not recommended.
- The court held that, read with the standard pattern instruction and the charge as a whole, the additional language did not create a reasonable likelihood that jurors would apply a lesser standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Because the overall instructions adequately conveyed the State’s burden and the presumption of innocence, there was no reversible instructional error.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires the State to prove each element of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Alleged jury-instruction error is assessed by examining the instructions together and in light of the entire record, not by isolating a single phrase.
- The constitutional question for reasonable-doubt instructions is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the instructions to permit conviction on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Courts generally discourage attempts to define “reasonable doubt” beyond approved pattern instructions because elaborations can confuse jurors, but an added definition warrants reversal only if it lowers the State’s burden when the charge is viewed as a whole.

## Conclusion

The court held that although the trial judge’s supplemental definition of reasonable doubt was improper and discouraged, it did not dilute the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard when combined with the approved pattern instruction; therefore, Walker’s convictions were affirmed.


State v. Walker, 80 P.3d 1132 (Kan. 2003)