ICJI 1502

ICJI 1502 ALIBI DEFENSE

The defendant in this case has introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission of the alleged offense for which the defendant is here on trial. This is what is known as an alibi. If, after a consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

Comment

The committee recommends that no alibi instruction be given. The purpose of alibi evidence is to create a reasonable doubt as to whether it was the defendant who committed the crime charged. State v. Sheehan, 33 Idaho 553, 196 P. 532 (1921). The jury instructions typically given inform the jury that their verdict must be not guilty unless the state proves every material allegation of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including the allegation that the defendant committed the offense charged. These instructions adequately cover the same issue that is addressed by an alibi instruction. State v. Ward, 31 Idaho 419, 173 P. 497 (1918); State v. Webb, 6 Idaho 428, 55 P. 892 (1899); State v. Nelson, 112 Idaho 245, 731 P.2d 788 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Kay, 108 Idaho 661, 710 P.2d 281 (Ct. App. 1985); and State v. Elisondo, 103 Idaho 69, 644 P.2d 992 (Ct. App. 1982). The jury does not need an alibi instruction in order to understand the significance of evidence showing that the defendant was not at the scene of the crime when it was committed. If the trial court decides to give an alibi instruction, however, the committee recommends that this instruction, based on State v. Holm, 93 Idaho 904, 478 P.2d 284 (1970), be given.