State v. Thornton

Citations

• 10 S.D. 349
• 41 L.R.A. 530
• 73 N.W. 196
• 1897 S.D. LEXIS 73

Syllabus

<p>1. The fact that a witness in a criminal trial had incidentally spoken of the defendant as having been arrested upon another charge would not be sufficient to warrant the belief that the jury could have been misled by the charge of the court when speaking of the crime with which the “defendant is eharg-ed.”</p> <p>2. The trial court charged the jury: “Where the state makes out such a case as would sustain a verdict of guilty, and the defendant offers evidence, the burden is upon the defendant to make out his defense as to an alibi; and when the proof is all in, both that given for the defendant and for the state, then the primary question is (the whole evidence being considered), is the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? — the ’ law being that if, after you have considered all the evidence, as well as that touching the question of alibi as the criminating- evidence introduced by the state, you have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, you should acquit; if you have not, you should convict. ” Held, a proper charge and not error.</p> <p>3. The term “burden of proof,” when used in connection with proving- an alibi in a criminal trial, does not imply that the defendant must prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence, or by such evidence as. will satisfy the jury that his defense is true, but only that, after the state has made out its case, it devolves upon the accused to introduce evidence to prove his alibi, if he relies upon such a defense. Puller, J., dissenting.</p>