Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Bacon
Citations: 84 A.D.2d 680; 446 N.Y.S.2d 634; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15806
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 29, 1981; New York; State Appellate Court
Judgment unanimously reversed, and a new trial granted. The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument, attempted to establish an alibi defense through his own testimony and that of two witnesses, asserting he was not at the crime scene and that the car in question was not in his possession. The trial court denied a request to instruct the jury on the law regarding alibi defense, claiming the witnesses did not qualify as alibi witnesses. This refusal constituted reversible error, as the defendant had presented an alibi defense, which should have been properly instructed to the jury. The appellate court emphasized that a defendant is not required to prove impossibility of committing the crime but is entitled to have alibi evidence considered against the prosecution's case to create reasonable doubt. The court noted that the jury was misled to believe their decision depended solely on which witnesses they believed, improperly shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant. The jury should have been informed that the prosecution bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant did not carry the same burden regarding his defense. Additionally, the court criticized the admission of irrelevant testimony about other checks allegedly taken from the defendant’s former workplace, which was unrelated to the charges and violated the principle against introducing evidence of uncharged crimes to establish guilt. The court found that the prosecution’s evidence did not meet exceptions outlined in relevant case law. Other claims of error raised by the defendant were found to lack merit. The case originated from a judgment by the Monroe Supreme Court.