In Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted an instruction on "reasonable doubt." The court required that its prescribed instruction be submitted in all criminal cases even in the absence of a request to do so, and defined a "reasonable doubt" as: "a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs." The Court of criminal appeals determined that a defendant was entitled to "a full definitional instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt" and expressly adopted a six-paragraph instruction to be "submitted to the jury in all criminal cases, even in the absence of an objection or request by the State or the defendant." The chosen definition included, in its third paragraph, the instruction that is the subject of this appeal, namely, "It is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution's proof excludes all 'reasonable doubt' concerning the defendant's guilt." Id. at 162.