Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
51. As to the defendant's claim of alibi, which of the following additional instructions would be proper?
The court instructed the jury that in order to convict the defendant, they had to find all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant did not testify, but his sister did. She testified that on March 5, at the time of the robbery, the defendant was with her in a city 300 miles away. On cross-examination, the sister admitted having given a statement to the police in which she had said that the defendant was not with her on March 5, but she claimed that the earlier statement was mistaken.
A defendant was tried for armed robbery. The state introduced evidence that a man, identified by witnesses as the defendant, entered a convenience store at 11 p.m. on March 5, threatened the clerk with a gun, and took $75 from the cash register.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
C is correct. Because an alibi is not an affirmative defense but rather negates an essential element of the crime (the defendant's actual commission thereof), due process precludes imposing upon a defendant the burden of proving an alibi. As a result, this instruction is proper.
A is incorrect. An alibi defense is an attempt to establish reasonable doubt or innocence. Because the burden does not shift to the defendant, he does not have the burden to prove his alibi by any standard, including by a preponderance of the evidence.
B is incorrect. When a defendant is prosecuted for a crime, he has the right to defend himself by presenting evidence that would raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the trier of fact. There is no requirement that he produce sufficient evidence before raising a traditional defense that goes to an element of the crime, such as an alibi.
D is incorrect. This instruction would be improper because it asks the jury to examine the defendant's level of evidence presented rather than to examine the prosecution's evidence. The jury should be instructed to determine whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient or insufficient under the burden of proof, not whether the defendant produced enough evidence to establish reasonable doubt.