Therefore, we review this issue for plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights. People v Allen, 466 Mich 86, 89-90; 643 NW2d 227 (2002). The plain error standard requires a defendant to establish "(1) that the error occurred, (2) that the error was 'plain,' (3) that the error affected substantial rights, and (4) that the error either resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."
The trial court is not required to define "reasonable doubt" for the jury, and it may not give the jury an inaccurate definition of "reasonable doubt." People v Allen, 466 Mich 86, 90-93; 643 NW2d 227 (2002). However, the trial court is not prohibited from providing the jury with a correct definition of "reasonable doubt."
Special jury instructions must be requested by a party; a trial court does not err by failing to sua sponte provide special jury instructions. See MCL 768.29 ("The failure of the court to instruct on any point of law shall not be ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury unless such instruction is requested by the accused"); People v Allen, 466 Mich 86, 87; 643 NW2d 227 (2002) (Concluding that the trial court's failure to sua sponte define reasonable doubt was not error when the instruction was not requested and the given jury instructions presented the applicable law); People v Caldwell, 20 Mich App 224, 230; 173 NW2d 751 (1969) (Concluding that if defense counsel was not satisfied with the given jury instructions "it was his privilege and his duty to have asked the court for further instructions, and, failing in this, he is estopped from asserting error"). In this case, the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of concealing or harboring a felon pursuant to MCL 750.199(3).
Moreover, "[j]urors are presumed to have common sense, and to understand common English." People v Allen, 466 Mich 86, 91; 643 NW2d 227 (2002), quoting Hamilton v People, 29 Mich 173, 194 (1874). The definition of every term contained in the elements of the crime need not be sua sponte provided to the jury "because it is not necessary to define [ ] [a] commonly understood phrase."
In an analogous setting, we have held that a court does not commit a plain error where it fails to define the phrase "reasonable doubt." See People v. Allen, 466 Mich. 86, 643 N.W.2d 227 (2002), and cases cited therein. "Jurors are presumed to have common sense, and to understand common English."
. A reasonable doubt is an "honestly entertained" doubt, which arises from a defect of knowledge or evidence. People v. Allen, 466 Mich. 86, 91-92; 643 N.W.2d 227 (2002), quoting People v. Steubenvoll, 62 Mich. 329, 334; 28 N.W. 883 (1886). Sufficient evidence can be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or reasonable inferences that arise therefrom.
A reasonable doubt is an" 'honestly entertained'" doubt, which arises from a defect of knowledge or evidence. People v Allen, 466 Mich. 86, 91-92; 643 N.W.2d 227 (2002), quoting People v Stubenvoll, 62 Mich. 329, 334; 28 N.W. 883 (1886). Although there must be more than just "some evidence" of guilt, People v Hampton, 407 Mich. 354, 368; 285 N.W.2d 284 (1979), sufficient evidence can be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences that arise therefrom.
A reasonable doubt is an honestly entertained doubt, which arises from a defect of knowledge or evidence. People v Allen, 466 Mich 86, 91-92; 643 NW2d 227 (2002). The rules of evidence apply at the criminal contempt hearing, and there is no right to a jury trial.
"The fundamental nature of the right to a jury trial is reflected in both the federal and state constitutions." People v Allen, 466 Mich 86, 90; 643 NW2d 227 (2002), citing US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, ยง 20. However, a criminal defendant is entitled to waive his or her right to a jury trial with the consent of both the prosecutor and the trial court. MCL 763.3(1).
We disagree. In People v Allen, 466 Mich 86, 90; 643 NW2d 227 (2002), the Michigan Supreme Court explained: The right to a jury trial in a criminal felony prosecution is fundamental.