Opinion ID: 2336670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the request to charge on alibi.

Text: Defendant's brief defense to the charge was that on the evening of April 4, 1958, he had gone shopping with his wife and had returned home around 10 P.M. A neighbor offered confirmatory testimony. Thereafter, Driver went to the nearby Ewing Tavern which he frequented, and, to the best of his recollection, remained there until sometime between 1 and 2 A.M. Then he went home. There can be no doubt that he was a regular patron of the tavern. According to the bartender, he came in practically every night. The defense, considering that under the proof alibi was a proper subject to be covered by the trial judge in his instructions to the jury, requested him to charge as follows: If a reasonable doubt of guilt is raised, even by inconclusive evidence of an alibi, the Defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and a judgment of acquittal. He declined to do so, but in our judgment the matter of alibi is properly in the case and should be explained to the jury. The precise language submitted to the court was the subject of a request in State v. De Geralmo, 83 N.J.L. 135, 137 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), and in State v. Tanzarello, 1 N.J. Misc. 375 ( Sup. Ct. 1923). In both instances, refusal to so charge resulted in a reversal of the conviction. Since this case is to be retried, the matter is commended to the trial court's attention.