# Paulson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 4, 2000 · 28 S.W.3d 570

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677983

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul David PAULSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 4, 2000
- **Citations:** 28 S.W.3d 570; 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89; 2000 WL 1468423
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Price
- **Judges:** Keasler, McCormick, Mansfield, Keller, Womack, Holland, Johnson, Meyers, Price
- **Cited by:** 830 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Culton, Alan Enrique v. State (2002).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677983

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that total omission of reasonable-doubt instruction then required by Geesa was error that was not subject to harmless error, reversing judgment of conviction, and remanding for new trial
- stating, AWe specifically overrule that portion of Geesa which requires trial courts to instruct juries on the definition of >beyond a reasonable doubt.=@
- stating, “We specifically overrule that portion of Geesa which requires trial courts to instruct juries on the definition of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’”

## Opinion text

PRICE, J.,
delivered a dissenting opinion.
APPENDIX
All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial. The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.
The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty and it must do so by proving each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must acquit the defendant.
It is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all “reasonable doubt” concerning the defendant’s guilt.
A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs.
*574 In the event you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt after considering all the evidence before you and these instructions, you will acquit him and say by your verdict “Not guilty.”
Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 162 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677983. Public record. Not legal advice.