Opinion ID: 1346416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: a. the alexander instruction

Text: The primary issue for resolution by this Court is whether the appellant is entitled to a new trial based upon the giving of an alibi instruction to the jury that the appellant contends unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the appellant. The questioned instruction reads as follows: The Court instructs the jury that where the State of West Virginia has established a prima facie case and the defendant relies upon the defense of alibi, the burden is upon the defendant to prove it, not beyond a reasonable doubt, nor by a preponderance of the evidence, but by such evidence, and to such a decree of certainty, as will, when the whole evidence is considered, create and leave in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. In substantially identical form, the above instruction was approved by this Court in State v. Alexander, W.Va., 245 S.E.2d 633 (1978). In Alexander we stated that although in West Virginia [a]libi is an affirmative defense ... [it] ... does not relieve the prosecution of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the actual presence of the accused at the time and place of the commission of the crime when personal presence is essential thereto. 245 S.E.2d at 637. [2] We therefore held that it was not improper for a trial court to instruct a jury that defendant had a burden to prove his [alibi] defense sufficiently to create a reasonable doubt. Id., citing State v. Pendry, W.Va., 227 S.E.2d 210 (1976), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. Warden, West Virginia Penitentiary, W.Va., 241 S.E.2d 914, 916 (1978). Approximately two weeks after the appellant in this case was convicted, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Adkins v. Bordenkircher, 674 F.2d 279 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 119, 74 L.Ed.2d 104 (1982), determined that the Alexander instruction was invalid. In so holding, the court in Adkins criticized this Court's characterization of alibi as an affirmative defense stating that it improperly shifts the burden of persuasion from the prosecution to the defendant with respect to alibi contrary to the definition of an affirmative defense as set forth in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). It appears that the court in Adkins, therefore, invalidated the Alexander instruction because it is contrary to the doctrines of Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975) and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), inasmuch as the court concluded that it unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt from the prosecution to the defendant. [3] However, the court in Adkins also made reference in a footnote that the challenged instruction should be struck down, in any event, [b]ecause the alibi instruction could mislead reasonable jurors in the proper allocation of the burden of persuasion.... 674 F.2d at 282 n. 7, citing Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). See also Simmons v. Dalsheim, 543 F.Supp. 729 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd, 702 F.2d 423 (2d Cir.1983); Stump v. Bennett, 398 F.2d 111 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1001, 89 S.Ct. 483, 21 L.Ed.2d 466 (1968). [4] The instructions in the case before us, when read as a whole, clearly informed the jury that the prosecution had the burden of proving every element of the crime with which the appellant was charged beyond a reasonable doubt and that the appellant was presumed to be innocent. See infra note 9. In addition, as we noted in Alexander, supra, historically such a burden has always been upon the prosecution regardless of whether the defendant raises alibi as a defense. See supra note 2. The prosecution in the case before us was not relieved of its legal burden to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt as required by In re Winship, supra , nor was any portion of that legal burden shifted to the defendant in violation of Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra , nor could it create confusion under Sandstrom, supra . In deference to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, we will follow the result reached in Adkins. For reasons we have stated in this opinion, we believe that it reached an incorrect result when it held the alibi instruction contained in Alexander to be constitutionally defective under either the Mullaney approach or the Sandstrom approach. In any event, if we choose to disregard the opinion of the court in Adkins, we would create the problem of sustaining convictions in the state court with predictable release through habeas corpus in the federal court. Accordingly, we hold that because of the holding in Adkins v. Bordenkircher, supra , State v. Alexander, supra , is overruled to the extent that it permits the giving of an instruction that places the burden upon the defendant to prove his alibi defense so that it creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury as to his guilt.