Does the rule of convenience or necessity apply to criminal prosecution?

However, some clarification must be made as to the effect of the implementation of the rule of convenience or necessity in a criminal prosecution. In People v. Zepeda, 231 Cal.App.2d 18, at page 21, 41 Cal.Rptr. 571, at page 573, the court stated: 'The general rule as to proof of a negative averment in an information is 'that where the negative of an issue does not permit direct proof, or where the facts come more immediately within the knowledge of the defendant, the onus probandi rests upon him' (People v. Osaki, 209 Cal. 169, 177-178, 286 P. 1025, 1028.)' Black's Law Dictionary defines the term onus probandi as follows: 'Burden of proving; the burden of proof. The strict meaning of the term 'onus probandi' is that, if no evidence is adduced by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. (Davis v. Rogers, 1 Houst. (Del.) 44.)'