The evidence must establish the guilt of the defendant beyond every reasonable doubt before a conviction can be had. A mere preponderance is not sufficient, however strong the preponderance may be, unless it generates full belief of the charge to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.16

A reasonable doubt is one arising from a candid and impartial investigation of all the evidence, and such as in the graver transactions of life would cause a reasonable and prudent man to hesitate and pause.17

The reasonable doubt the jury are permitted to entertain must be as to the guilt of the accused on the whole of the evidence and not as to any particular fact.18

12 People vs. Bennett, 49 N. Y., 139; 3 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 137

(Redf. Ed.). 13 Purdy vs. People, 140 Ill., 48;

Com. vs. Webster, 5 Cush.

(Mass.), 313. 14 Dunn vs. People, 158 Ill., 593;

Carlton vs. People, 150 Ill., 187.

15 Bonardo vs. People, 182 Ill., 417;

Carlton vs. People, 150 Ill., 181.

16 3 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 29; Shields vs. State, 104 Ala., 35. 17 Little vs. People, 157 Ill., 158; Dunn vs. People, 109 Ill635; Com. vs. Miller, 139 Pa. St., 77.

The jury may be said to entertain a reasonable doubt when, after a comparison and consideration of all the evidence in the case, they cannot say that they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.19