Case Title: State v. Rosenbaum

Citation: 22 Utah 2d 159, 449 P.2d 999

Docket Number: 

State: utah

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Date: 1969-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
449 P.2d 999 (1969) 22 Utah 2d 159 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kenneth DeMar ROSENBAUM, Defendant and Appellant. No. 11315. Supreme Court of Utah. January 30, 1969. *1000 Hatch & McRae, Sumner J. Hatch, Salt Lake City, for appellant. Joseph P. McCarthy, Salt Lake City, for respondent, Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Gerald G. Gundry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, on the brief. ELLETT, Justice: The appellant was convicted of the crime of burglary in the third degree and appeals to this court, claiming that the trial judge erred in giving the jury the following instruction: It has been held that a cautionary instruction regarding the defense of alibi such as that given in this case is not erroneous when other instructions correctly state the law.[1] However, such holdings are generally confined to jurisdictions where the trial judge is permitted to comment on the evidence. In this state the trial judge is not permitted to comment on evidence and he, therefore, may not indicate to a jury that evidence is either weak or convincing. It is the sole and exclusive province of the jury to determine the facts in a criminal case, and this it must do regardless of the relative strength or weakness of the evidence in the case.[2] The first case wherein an instruction disparaging the defense of alibi was used and approved by the appellate court so far as the writer is aware is that of People v. Lee Gam, 65 Cal. 552, 11 P. 183 (1886). However, on rehearing of the case of People v. Levine,[3] 85 Cal. 39, 24 P. 631 (1890), the California court criticized a precautionary instruction regarding alibi and said at page 632: The Levine case was followed by the case of People v. Lattimore, 86 Cal. 403, 24 P. 1091 (1890), wherein the court said at page 1092: In 1943 the California Supreme Court in the case of People v. Costello, 20 Cal. 2d 760, 135 P.2d 164, explained its prior rulings and reversed a conviction upon instructions *1001 which contained the following language: In discussing the matter, the court said at pages 166 and 167: In the Arizona case of Garrett v. State, 25 Ariz. 508, 219 P. 593 (1923), it was held that the following part of an instruction was a comment on the evidence: In reversing the conviction the court said at pages 595 and 596: In State v. Crowell, 149 Mo. 391, 50 S.W. 893 (1899), the court discussed an instruction which tended to disparage the defense of alibi. At page 894 it was said: The case of State v. Spadoni, 137 Wash. 684, 243 P. 854, was decided by the Washington Supreme Court in 1926. There the defendant had offered evidence of alibi. At pages 860 and 861 the court said: In the case of State v. Smalls, 98 S.C. 297, 82 S.E. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court of South Carolina held: The overwhelming weight of authority in jurisdictions where the trial judge may not comment on the weight and effect of evidence is that an instruction disparaging the defense of alibi is erroneous and prejudicial. We think that in this case it was prejudicial error for the court to indicate to the jury that they should apply a different standard for determining the weight of evidence regarding alibi from that which they were to apply to any other evidence in the case. An innocent defendant who knows nothing of the facts of a crime charged against him would be hard put to offer a better defense than that of alibi. The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. CROCKETT, C.J., and TUCKETT, CALLISTER and HENRIOD, JJ., concur. [1] See annotations in 14 A.L.R. 1426; 67 A.L.R. 122; 146 A.L.R. 1377. [2] State v. Green, 78 Utah 580, 6 P.2d 177 (1931). [3] The original hearing was listed as People v. Sevine at 85 Cal. 39, 22 P. 969 (1889).