California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Terrell, 138 Cal.App.2d 35, 291 P.2d 155 (Cal. App. 1955):
'* * * This defense is designed to prove that accused, during [138 Cal.App.2d 53] the whole time that the crime was being committed, was so far from the place where the crime occurred that he could not have participated in it, or that he was so far away that he could not, with ordinary exertion, have reached the place in time to have done so * * *.' (Footnote reference is had to Hodge v. State, 174 Ark. 1179, 298 S.W. 877, wherein it was held that an accused, living on the premises where a still was found, could have no alibi defense.) Furthermore, the jury was fully, fairly and correctly instructed, and the testimony and reasonable inferences therefrom definitely established appellant's connection with the premises and his presence thereon at the time here in question. It is implicit in the jury's verdict that they believed the testimony establishing appellant's presence in the room involved and his participation in the acts charged as having occurred therein, and did not believe the 'alibi' sotry of appellant and his witnesses. It follows that to have given the requested instruction on the subject of alibi would not have added any credence to their story and a different verdict would not have ensued. Hence, there was no prejudice in the court's failure to give an instruction on the subject of alibi, particularly in view of the general instructions actually given.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.