Jake Paul Heiney v. Ohio

This Court has held that Due Process in criminal cases requires that a State prove every element of an alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). This Court has also held that a known improper jury instruction as to “reasonable doubt” automatically invalidates any conviction. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993), because the jury must make the finding of guilt. Id. at 277.

1. Is a state court conviction valid if the jury was given a known improper instruction as to the definition of an element of the charged offense and the improper instruction permitted the Jury to find guilt without the State having proven the element beyond a reasonable doubt with its proper definition?

2. May “harmless error” analysis be applied where a jury instruction as to the definition of an element of the charged offense was found to be error and the error made it possible for the jury to find guilt without finding the element in question proven beyond a reasonable doubt?