The appellant appealed a conviction for second degree murder arising from a fatal shooting after a house party.
The central issue was whether the trial judge's jury re-instruction on reasonable doubt improperly required jurors to articulate a logical reason for their doubt and further referred to the notion of a timid juror.
The court held that this wording was contrary to established appellate authority and inconsistent with the proper reasonable doubt framework.
In the context of a closely contested case, the error was reversible and necessitated a new trial.
