Court Opinion

ID: 9540394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:15:33.911363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:32.389810
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
I cannot agree with everything which is stated in the majority opinion on the subject of presumptions, and affirmative defenses, and particularly the important issue of “alibi” — hence this concurring opinion.
. While there has been conflict in the authorities as to the necessity of a particular charge by the Court on the subject of alibi, the law has been well settled that: (1) the Commonwealth has the burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;* and (2) alibi is an affirmative defense Which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See my opinion in Commonwealth v. Richardson, 392 Pa. 528, 140 A. 2d 828. However, experience has demonstrated that a Court’s charge on the burden of proof of “alibi”, even when technically accurate, is ofttimes confusing. Therefore, I welcome the change which I have long advocated*233* that where a defendant offers proof of an alibi in a criminal case, in order to avoid confusing tbe jury, it is imperative that we direct the trial Judge to omit from his charge any reference to the fact that defendant has the burden of proving an alibi by a preponderance of the evidence, and merely charge the jury substantially as follows: “The Commonwealth has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of . . . was committed, and that defendant committed or participated in the commission of it. Defendant has offered evidence of an alibi, that is, he offered evidence to prove that he was not present at the place where the crime was committed but was in . . . Defendant’s evidence in support of his alibi, either alone or together with any other evidence in the case, may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. If you have a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt you must of course acquit him.”

 Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 46, 103 A. 2d 694, contains a definition of reasonable doubt.

 And which Chief Justice Maxey advocated in Commonwealth v. Barnak, 357 Pa. 391, 406, 54 A. 2d 865.