Reasonable Doubt

By Elizabeth Kruska

State v. Rein Kolts, 2026 VT 10

 

Who gets Due Process? Everybody. What is Due Process? Broadly stated, it’s one’s ability to have a fair hearing on the allegation against them. Sounds easy enough, right? Baked into the notion of the fair hearing is that the hearing will happen according to the law. You can have hearings all day long and if the court doesn’t apply the law correctly, that could be a Due Process violation. I say “could” because sometimes judges make mistakes (because they are people and people do that). Sometimes those mistakes aren’t a big deal in the grand scheme of the case. Sometimes those mistakes are a big enough deal that they become plain error.

 

And that’s what happened here.

 

Briefly, Rein Kolts was accused of aggravated sexual assault on a minor under the age of 13. The opinion identified the minor as a person named N.H. Although the facts suggested there were many years’ worth of assaults, the State charged Mr. Kolts with respect to 2 specific allegations. The case was tried, N.H. testified, and Mr. Kolts was convicted. Mr. Kolts appealed, and the Vermont Supreme Court reversed. 

 

Three points of error were raised; I’ll start with the easiest ones. Mr. Kolts raised an issue of admission of prior bad acts. SCOV doesn’t get to this because it reversed for other reasons.

 

He also argued that he should have been granted a judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove the actual age of N.H at the time of the allegations. At the time of the trial, N.H. was in her mid-twenties and was testifying about allegations from twelve to fifteen years before. Although she never clearly said “I was this exact age and it was under the age of thirteen,” the court found there was enough context in her testimony to support the finding that she was under the age of thirteen. SCOV says this was properly denied. 

 

That leads us to the bigger issue, which was the jury instructions. First, courts have to assume that jurors follow the legal instructions they are given. My observation, as someone who has tried cases, is that this is true. Jurors generally really want to do their job and do it correctly. That makes it all the more important that the instructions they receive are clear, unambiguous, and correctly state the law. 

 

In its instructions, the trial court tried to define reasonable doubt as “great certainty.” This had been done in a prior case called State v. Leavitt, and SCOV takes the opportunity to overrule that part of Leavitt.

 

Very interestingly, Mr. Kolts argued to SCOV that under federal law the jury instruction was a Due Process violation. In looking at lots of federal cases, courts all over the place have been warned not to try to define “reasonable doubt” because an imprecise definition can lead to unclear instructions and potentially burden-shifting. “Great certainty” isn’t enough to get to the bar of reasonable doubt, and by instruction the jurors that’s what it means, it potentially gave the State a lower burden of proof.

 

Also, at the time of the trial, Mr. Kolts didn’t object to the jury instructions, so SCOV reviews for plain error. This is a really high bar. SCOV would have to find (and did) that there was 1) an error; 2) that it was obvious; 3) that it must affect substantial rights and result in prejudice to the aggrieved party; and 4) that it must be corrected if it seriously affects judicial proceedings. 

 

SCOV basically says the trial court should have known this was not an appropriate definition of reasonable doubt, based on lots of cases being decided across the country essentially saying “hey judges, don’t try to define reasonable doubt because you will do it wrong and you will create reversible error so just stop it.” They don’t say that exactly, but if I was a federal judge (lolololol I’m not going to be a federal judge, obvs), I might say it that clearly.

 

So, this case gets reversed and remanded for a new trial.