Also known as: Winship standard · Winship · In re Winship · beyond a reasonable doubt
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional requirement that the prosecution prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction may be obtained. In the absence of such proof the defendant is presumed innocent. The rule protects the presumption of innocence by allocating the risk of factual error to the government.
Warren Wu is charged with theft. The prosecution presents evidence that Warren took property but offers no proof that he intended to deprive the owner permanently. The jury cannot convict because the intent element remains unproved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Winona Walsh seeks life-insurance proceeds after her spouse dies. The estate proves by a preponderance that Winona intentionally killed the insured. The court bars recovery even though the criminal jury acquitted her, because the civil proceeding uses the lower standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Winston Ward is convicted of a firearm offense. The judge finds at sentencing that the weapon was used in connection with a hate crime and adds five years. The enhancement violates the rule because the hate-crime fact must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Willow West, age fourteen, faces a delinquency petition for arson. The court finds the act occurred by a preponderance. The adjudication must be vacated because the Winship rule requires proof of every element beyond a reasonable doubt even in juvenile proceedings.
Warren Woods is tried for murder and raises insanity. The court instructs the jury that the defendant must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. The instruction is proper because the rule governs only the elements of the offense, not affirmative defenses.
William Williams is convicted of assault. The judge finds at sentencing that the victim suffered permanent injury and imposes the maximum term. The sentence cannot stand because the permanent-injury fact increases the statutory maximum and must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
No. The rule requires the prosecution to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Affirmative defenses may be allocated to the defendant and proved by a lower standard such as preponderance or clear and convincing evidence.
Supporting sources
A civil proceeding uses the preponderance standard to decide whether a person is a slayer. A final criminal conviction for intentional killing conclusively establishes slayer status, but an acquittal does not prevent a civil finding.
Supporting sources
Yes. Any fact that increases a mandatory minimum sentence is an element of the offense that must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element in juvenile cases based on criminal conduct, just as in adult criminal prosecutions.
Supporting sources
…the essentials of due process and fair treatment.' " Id., at 30 . This case presents the single, narrow question whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is among the "essentials of due process and fair treatment" required during the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act which would constitute a crime if committed by an…