ALIBI (Lat. elsewhere). Presence in an other place than that described.
When a person, charged with a crime, proves (se eadem die fuisse alibi) that he was, at the time al leged, in a different place from that in which it was committed, he is said to prove an alibi, the effect of which is to lay a foundation for the necessary In ference that he could not have committed it. See Bracton 140.
This proof is usually made out by the testimony of witnesses, but it is presumed it might be made out by writings; as if the party could prove by a record, properly authenticated, that on the day or at the time in question he was in another place.
It has been said that this defence must be subjected to a most rigid scrutiny, and that it must be established by a preponderance of proof ; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 324, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Washington Ben. Soc. v. Bacher, 20 Pa. 429; Creed v. People, 81 Ill. 565; State v. Reed, 62 Ia. 40, 17 N. W. 150. See of Shaw, C. J., in Webster's Case, and 2 Alison's Cr. L. of Scotl. 624; Bish. Crim. L. 1061. In many states the de fence is established if the evidence raises in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant ; State v. Howell, 100 Mo. 628, 14 S. W. 4; Adams v..
State, 28 Fla. 511, 10 South. 106 ; Pate v. State, 94 Ala. 14, 10 South. 665 ; People v. Fong Ah Sing, 64 Cal. 253, 28 Pac. 233 ; Landis v. State, 70 Ga. 651, 48 Am. Rep. 588; Howard v. State, 50 Ind. 190; People v. Pearsall, 50 Mich. 233, 15 N. W. 98; and if the testimony tends to prove an alibi, failure to instruct thereon is error ; Fletcher v. State, 85 Ga. 666, 11 S. E. 872. An instruc tion that an alibi need not be established be yond a reasonable doubt, but It should be to the satisfaction of the jury, is correct; Peo ple v. Stone, 117 N. Y. 480, 23 N. E. 13; Caldwell v. State, 28 Tex. App. 566, 14 S. W. 122 ; Garrity v. People, 107 Ill. 162; State v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185, 51 Am. Rep. 236 ; Ware v. State, 67 Ga. 349. It is peculiarly liable to be supported by perjury and false testi mony of all sorts. There must be satisfac tory proof that the prisoner could not have been at the place where the crime was com mitted, but the proof need not be higher than is required as to other facts; Johnson v. State, 59 Ga. 142. See State v. Northrup, 48 Ia. 583, 30 Am. Rep. 408 ; People v. Gam, 69 Cal. 552, 11 Pac. 183.