David v. State

<p>Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Harris superior court—Judge Howard. July 26, 1919.</p> <p>The instructions complained of in the motion for a new trial were as follows: “The burden is on the defendant to establish to the satisfaction of the jury that the alibi is true. If he does, he should be acquitted on this testimony alone. It is not necessary that he establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jurors are not "atisfied that an alibi has been established, you should not disregard any testimony introduced to support it, but you should consider this testimony alohg with the other testimony in the ease and the defendant’s statement, in arriving at a verdict in the case, and determine whether the defendant is guilty of any charge beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether he is not guilty, as contended by him.” It was contended that “said charge is confusing and misleading,” and it “places a burden on the defendant that the law does not impose upon him,—that is of establishing his alibi beyond a reasonable doubt.”</p>