What is the test for reasonable doubt in a robbery case?

'As to the general statutory definitions of robbery and [137 Cal.App.2d Supp. 874] reasonable doubt, which were given as instructions, a statement from People v. Cook, 1905, 148 Cal. 334, 347, 83 P. 43, 49, is apt: 'It is true that the instruction given stated the law correctly; but it was brief, general, and colorless in comparison with the instruction asked, and had the effect of minimizing the importance of a consideration which could not have been stated with too much emphasis.'

'The situation is similar to that presented in People v. Visconti, 1916, 31 Cal.App. 169, 170, 160 P. 410, 411, where the court said, 'In view of the testimony offered for the purpose of establishing an alibi, the defendant asked the court to give an instruction by which the jury was to be informed that in making the proof of an alibi the defendant was not obliged to establish that defense by a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but that it was sufficient to entitle him to a verdict of not guilty if the proof raised in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the presence of the defendant at the place where the crime was alleged to have been committed and at the time referred to in the information. The court refused to give this instruction, or any instruction upon the matter of the defense of an alibi. It seems to be conceded, as it must, that the instruction as proposed was pertinent and proper;

Page 597