|ICJI 1707 BURDEN OF PROOF
It is presumed that no statutory aggravating circumstance exists in this case. This presumption remains throughout the sentencing hearing and during your deliberations. That presumption cannot be overcome unless, from all the evidence, you are convinced that [the] [one or more] alleged statutory aggravating circumstance[s] has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The State has the burden of proving the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance, and that burden remains on the State throughout the sentencing hearing. The defendant is not required to prove the absence of any aggravating circumstance, nor is the defendant required to produce any evidence at all.
Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is the state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge.
This is the standard "reasonable doubt" instruction that has been approved by the Supreme Court for use in Idaho. See State v. Rhoades, 121 Idaho 63, 82, 822 P.2d 960, 979 (1991); State v. Cotton, 100 Idaho 573, 577, 602 P.2d 71, 75 (1979). An alternative, proposed by the ICJI Committee but not approved as to form or content by case-law decision of the Supreme Court, appears as ICJI 103A.