State v. Denise Frei

Frei (defendant) was on trial for the first-degree murder of her longtime boyfriend. An expert witness for the defense testified that Frei suffered from depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, battered women’s syndrome, and possibly an anxiety disorder. The State offered expert testimony that Frei did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder and evidence that Frei had planned the killing to make her boyfriend’s death look like an accident. The district court gave the jury the following instruction on reasonable doubt:

If, after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence, you are firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt, then you have no reasonable doubt and you should find the defendant guilty. But if, after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence or lack of evidence produced by the State, you are not firmed convicned of the defendant’s guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt and you should find the defendant not guilty.

Frei argued that the instruction allowed the jury to convict her based on proof insufficient to meet the standard set in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause protects defendants against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which they are charged.