State v. Hier

• Decision Date: 11 May 1906
• Citation: 78 Vt. 488,63 A. 877
• Parties: STATE v. HIER.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

63 A. 877

78 Vt. 488

STATE

v. HIER.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Addison.

May 11, 1906.

Exceptions from Addison County Court; John H. Watson, Judge.

Aimer Hier was convicted of larceny, and brings exceptions. Affirmed.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, and POWERS, JJ.

Wm. H. Bliss, for plaintiff. Leroy C. Russell, State's Atty., for the State.

MUNSON, J. This was an information for the larceny of a heifer. The evidence of the state tended to show that the respondent stole the heifer from a pasture in New Haven about 8 o'clock in the evening of September 18th. The evidence of the defense tended to show that the respondent was in Vergennes during all that evening. The court instructed the jury in substance that this was evidence tending to establish an alibi; that an alibi is the best kind of defense, a full defense, for the reason that if the respondent was not where the crime was committed, he did not commit it; that they were to consider the evidence of the respondent and of all other witnesses upon that question, and all the circumstances of the case, and say whether the respondent had satisfied them by a fair balance of the evidence that he was in Vergennes at that time; that if he had satisfied them by a fair balance of the evidence that he was there at that time, that ended the case, and their verdict would be not guilty; but that if he had not satisfied them of this by a fair balance of the evidence he had failed to make out his alibi; that he knew where he was that evening and whether his defense was fabricated; that if they were satisfied beyond any question that the alibi was a fabricated defense, it was evidence, but not conclusive evidence, of his guilt—evidence to be considered with the other evidence bearing on the question; that even if they were not satisfied by a fair balance of the evidence that he was in Vergennes that evening—were not satisfied with his alibi, they could not throw it out of the case, but must consider it with all the other evidence, and say on the whole whether they were satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The respondent excepted to the charge because it put upon him the burden of proving the alibi by a balance of testimony. The instructions excepted to accord with the holding in State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 192, 17 Atl. 483. The respondent questions the correctness of that decision. State v. Ward is the only case we have that discusses the subject. The case of State v. Cameron, 40 Vt. 555, 504, was referred to in the discussion, but the court was evidently in some doubt as to the precise scope of that holding. In State v. Powers, 72 Vt. 168, 47 Atl. 830, there was no submission of the claimed alibi as a distinct issue, and the jury was told that if the evidence in support of the alibi, when considered in connection with the other evidence, raised in their minds a reasonable doubt as to the respondent's guilt, he was entitled to an acquittal. The court held that this was correct, but said further that it...