Humphries v. State

Citations

• 18 Tex. Ct. App. 302
• 1885 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 96

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Alibi—Burden of Proof—Charge of the Court. — In a trial for theft one of the defenses was alibi, and on the issue raised thereby the trial court charged the jury as follows: “ If the jury believe that the alibi which has been set up as a defense in this case lias been proven, or if they-have a reasonable doubt as to the fact of whether said alibi has been proven, they will give the defendant the benefit of it, and acquit him. When an alibi is relied upon as a defense, it rests on the defendant to prove it to the extent of raising a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is the person, who committed the offense charged.” Held error. In no criminal trial is the burden of proof shifted from the State on to the defendant. Proof of alibi is not an affirmative proposition by the defendant, but is an attack upon the incubatory evidence, of the State. It may be such as affirmatively disproves the case made by the State, or it may only suffice to legitimately raise a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; and in either case he is entitled to an acquittal.</p> <p>S. Same.— As defined by the trial court an alibi is: “ When an offense has been proven to have been committed upon a certain date and at a certain place, and the evidence shows that at that time the accused was at some other place than that where the testimony shows the offense to have been committed,— so remote from it as that it would have been impossible for him to have been the person who committed the offense,” etc. Held erroneous because it renders nugatory all proof of an alibi of the defendant unless the State has previously proved the commission of the offense at the time and place involved in the contestation. See the opinion in extenso on the subject.</p>