State v. Rodriguez - Arizona Judicial Branch

30 Defendant requested the following alibi instruction from
the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions (RAJI):
The defendant has produced evidence of being absent
at the time and place the alleged crime was committed.
If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was
present at the time and place the alleged crime was
committed, you must find the defendant not guilty.
6
See RAJI (Criminal) No. 12 (1989). Unlike a comment on the
evidence, the requested instruction does not suggest to the jury
that the evidence should lead them to any particular result.
Rather, it reframes the burden of proof in the context of
appellant’s alibi theory. 7
6 The RAJI alibi instruction was revised in 1996. RAJI
(Criminal) 11 now states:
The state has the burden of proving that the
defendant was present at the time and place the alleged
crime was committed. If you have a reasonable doubt
whether the defendant was present at the time and place
the alleged crime was committed, you must find the
defendant not guilty.
This language more clearly reflects the instruction’s utility in
redressing the risk of burden shifting. However, the revised
instruction also includes an alternate paragraph, which retains the
pre-1996 wording. The second paragraph of RAJI (Criminal) 11
appears redundant and unnecessary when the jury properly receives
the portion of the instruction quoted above.
7 In State v. West, 176 Ariz. 432, 444, 862 P.2d 192, 204
(1993), we cited article VI, section 27 of the Arizona Constitution
in rejecting a challenge to a trial court’s denial of an alibi
instruction. The court noted that “jury instructions are to be
instructions on the applicable law, not comments on bits and pieces
of evidence.” Id. Although we agree with this basic proposition,
whether West should control this case is unclear because the
opinion does not set forth the wording of the instruction. In any
event, we overrule West to the extent it may be read as
inconsistent with this opinion.
14