(a) Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: AIt is not a mere possible doubt because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the mind of the trier of fact in that condition that he cannot say he feels an abiding conviction to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge.@ (b) In charging a jury, the court may read Subsection (a) to the jury and no further instruction defining reasonable doubt need be given. COURT DECISIONS: D.C. GUAM APP. DIV. 1980. It is not error for the Areasonable doubt@ instruction to be given using the terms Aimportant affairs@ rather than Aa moral certainty@ as stated in Subsection (a) of § 90.23 of this Title. People v. Francisco San Agustin Ignacio, D.C. App. Guam 1980, Cr. App. #79-00036A.
COL120106
D.C. Guam App. Div. People v. Yang, DCA 84-0005A (1985). Since the Ninth Circuit Court has upheld the giving of a different instruction than the one found in 8 GCA § 90.23, the Appellate Court cannot change such approval without first being directed to do so by the Ninth Circuit. C.A.9, 1988. 1. Deferential standard of review is not to be applied to the construction of local law by the Appellate Division of the District Court. Strict standard of review de novo review is applicable. 2. Courts of Guam may not rely upon unpublished decisions of the Ninth Circuit. People v. Yang, C.A.9 (Guam) 1988, upon rehearing en banc, 850 F.2d 507. Prior decision, same case, overruled, 800 F.2d 945. NOTE: Subsection (a) of § 90.23 is substantively the same as the second portion of former § 1096. See also Cal. Pen. Code § 1096. (The first portion of former § 1096 is restated in § 90.21.) Subsection (b) incorporates a portion of § 1096(a) of the California Penal Code. See generally B. Witkin, California Criminal Procedure Trial § 484(a) (1963, Supp. 1973); 8 Moore, Federal Practice &30.06 (1974).