Opinion ID: 1435796
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction on Alibi Defense

Text: Appellant's third claim is that the trial court erred because it did not expressly tell the jury that an alibi defense could raise a reasonable doubt, even if not wholly believed. The trial court gave the following instruction concerning Appellant's alibi evidence: Now, obviously, the defendant cannot be guilty unless he was at the scene of the crime that is alleged. The defendant has offered evidence that he was not present at the scene of the crime, but rather was someplace else. You should consider this evidence along with all the other evidence in the case to determine whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the defendant himself committed or took part in committing it. The defendant's evidence that he was not present either by itself or together with other evidence in the case may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt in your mind. If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, you must find him not guilty. N.T., Sept. 30, 1991, at 1165. In support of this allegation of error, Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Pounds, 490 Pa. 621, 417 A.2d 597 (1980), which held that a trial court must provide an alibi instruction whenever a defendant raises an alibi defense. 417 A.2d at 603. Although we used the phrase even if not wholly believed in Pounds, 417 A.2d at 603, as part of a suggested charge, Appellant makes the same mistake as the defendant in Commonwealth v. Saunders by placing greater importance on these magic words than on the effect of the instruction. 602 A.2d at 818. In Saunders, we reviewed the following identical alibi instruction: Now, in this case there was also evidence of alibi. Obviously, the defendant cannot be guilty unless he was at the scene of the alleged crime. The defendant in this case has offered evidence to show that he was not present at the scene of the crime but was at another location during the time the crime was allegedly committed. You should consider this evidence along with all the other evidence in the case in determining whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the defendant himself committed the crime. The defendant's evidence that he was not present either by itself or together with the other evidence may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt in your minds. If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, then you must find him not guilty. Id. at 817. We held there that [a]s long as an alibi instruction makes it clear to the jury that a defendant's failure to prove alibi is not in itself a basis for a finding of guilt, the instruction cannot be faulted for failing to parrot the exact language contained in Pounds. Id. at 818. Accord Commonwealth v. Thomas, 552 Pa. 621, 717 A.2d 468, 478-79 (1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 78, 145 L.Ed.2d 66 (1999). It is apparent that the alibi instruction of the trial court captured the legal principle of an alibi defense, namely that a jury may acquit a defendant who presents an alibi defense, whether they believe all, part, or none, of that evidence, as long as they find that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Furthermore, while not controlling, the alibi charge was virtually identical to the instruction recommended in Instruction 3.11 of the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, which also does not contain the specific words sought by Appellant. [16]