as to render it impossible for him to have participated in it.18 And of course an alibi is not established by proving that the accused was not present when the crime was committed in cases where his presence is not necessary to his guilt, as where the evidence shows a conspiracy between the accused and another person to commit a crime and its commission by the other person pursuant to the conspiracy,19 or where the accused, though not present, is shown to have aided and abetted those who were present and actually committed it.20 Nor does evidence that the accused was at a different place at a time when the state endeavored to show that he purchased poison with which a murder was committed tend to establish an alibi.21 contrary was properly refused. Pickens v. State, 115 Ala. 42, 22 So. 551. Testimony that the defendant left his home, which was about one mile from the place where the crime was committed, about dark, stating that he was going to a place some 6 miles distant, and that he was not seen at such place until about 12 o'clock, was held not to require an instruction on alibi, since it did not exclude the idea of his presence at the place of the crime, but was entirely consistent with the state's theory that he was present and committed the crime. Parker v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 119, 49 S. W. 80. '18 State v. Fenlason, 78 Me. 495, 7 Atl. 385. That the defendant was at a place other than that where the offense was committed necessarily implies that he was at some distance from the latter place, but whether such distance is long or short is not always an absolutely controlling fact. "It can do no more than to lend greater or lesser countenance and force to the defense in a degree proportionate to its extent." Peyton v. State, 54 Neb. 188, 74 N. W. 597. "It is conceivable that a man could be within a few feet of another, and yet be so placed as to render his guilt of any crime in connection with him a physical impossibility. If this is proved on the trial, he has established an alibi. On the other hand, it is equally conceivable that a homicide or an assault could be committed though a great distance intervened between the person assaulting and the one assaulted.'' Harris v. State, 120 Ga. 167, 47 S. E. 520. Compare Klein v. People, 113 Ill. 596, where it is said that the whole strength of an alibi in every case depends upon the distance between the scene of the offense and the whereabouts of the accused at the time it was committed. 19 State v. Berger, 87 Kan. 479, 124 Pac. 400; State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. 266, 19 Pac. 749; State v. Gatlin, 170 Mo. 354, 70 S. W. 885. 20 As where defendant participated in a larceny by furnishing a wagon and team to carry away the stolen goods. Cole v. State (Miss.), 4 So. 577. Testimony merely to the effect that the defendant was not present at the commission of the crime does not amount to a defense of alibi. People v. Conners, 246 Ill. 9, 92 N. E. 567. 21 Such evidence is merely evidence conflicting with some of that introduced by the state, and is for the consideration of the jury under the plea of not guilty. Williams v. State, 123 Ga. 138, 51 S. E. 322. Even though the proof is insufficient to establish a perfect or complete alibi, the evidence offered on the subject may still be considered by the jury in connection with the other evidence, and may raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and if, on the whole evidence, including that as to alibi, there is a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to his presence at the time when and the place where the crime was committed, he is entitled to an acquittal.22 22 United States. Goldsby v. United States, 160 U. S. 70, 40 L. Ed. 343, 16 Sup. Ct. 216. Alabama. Pickens v. State, 115 Ala. 42, 22 So. 551. Arizona. Schultz v. Territory, 5 Ariz. 239, 52 Pac. 352. Arkansas. Rayburn v. State, 69 Ark. 177, 63 S. W. 356; Ware v. State, 59 Ark. 379, 27 S. W. 485; Blankenship v. State, 55 Ark. 244, 18 S. W. 54. California. People v. Winters, 125 Cal. 328, 57 Pac. 1067; People v. Roberts, 122 Cal. 377, 55 Pac. 137; People v. Worden, 113 Cal. 569, 45 Pac. 844; People v. Chun Heong, 86 Cal. 329, 24 Pac. 1021; People v. Tarm Poi, 86 Cal. 225, 24 Pac. 998; People v. Morris, 3 Cal. App. 1, 84 Pac. 463. Colorado. McNamara v. People, 24 Colo. 61, 48 Pac. 541. Connecticut. State v. Brauneis, 84 Conn. 222, 79 Atl. 70. Florida. Jordan v. State, 50 Fla. 94, 39 So. 155; Garcia v. State, 34 Fla. 311, 16 So. 223; Adams v. State, 34 Fla. 185, 15 So. 905; Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511, 10 So. 106; Savage v. State, 18 Fla. 970. Georgia. Montford v. State, 144 Ga. 582, 87 S. E. 797; Ware v. State, 67 Ga. 349. Illinois. People v. Ahrling, 279 Ill. 70, 116 N. E. 764; Briggs v. People, 219 Ill. 330, 76 N. E. 499; Flanagan v. People, 214 Ill. 170, 73 N. E. 347; Hauser v. People, 210 Ill. 253, 71 N. E. 416; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N. E. 244, 41 Am. St. Rep. 346; Miller v. People, 39 Ill. 457. Indiana. Binns v. State, 46 Ind. 311; Adams v. State, 42 Ind. 373; French v. State, 12 Ind. 670, 74 Am. Dec. 229. Iowa. State v. Bosworth, 170 Iowa 329, 152 N. W. 581; State v. Gulliver, 163 Iowa 123, 142 N. W. 948; State v. Thomas, 135 Iowa 717, 109 N. W. 900; State v. Pray, 126 Iowa 249, 99 N. W. 1065; State v. Worthen, 124 Iowa 408, 100 N. W. 330; State v. McGarry, 111 Iowa 709, 83 N. W. 718. Massachusetts. Com. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451. Michigan. People V. Resh, 107 Mich. 251, 65 N. W. 99; People v. Pearsall, 50 Mich. 233, 15 N. W. 98. Mississippi. Dawson v. State, 62 Miss. 241; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410, 24 Am. Rep. 703; Cole v. State, 4 So. 577. Missouri. State v. Bateman, 196 Mo. 35, 95 S. W. 413; State v. Davis, 186 Mo. 533, 85 S. W. 354; State v. McGinnis, 158 Mo. 105, 59 S. W. 83; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 S. W. 449. Montana. State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 Pac. 1026. Nebraska, Johnson v. State, 88 Neb. 565, 130 N. W. 282, Ann. Cas. 1912 B 965; Nightingale v. State, 62 Neb. 371, 87 N. W. 158. Nevada. State v. Waterman, 1 Nev. 543. New Jersey. State v. Mac Queen, This is true, for example, where the evidence offered to establish an alibi does not conclusively show that the defendant was at another place, so far away or under such circumstances that he could not pos 69 N. J. L. 522, 55 Atl. 1006; Sherlock v. State, 60 N. J. L. 31, 37 Atl. 435. New Mexico. State v. Smith, 21 N. M. 173, 153 Pac. 256; Territory v. Tais, 14 N. M. 399, 94 Pac. 947; Wilburn v. Territory, 10 N. M. 402, 62 Pac. 968. New York. People v. Stone, 117 N. Y. 480, 23 N. E. 13. North Carolina. State v. Freeman, 100 N. C. 429, 5 S. E. 921; State v. Starnes, 94 N. C. 973; State v. Josey, 64 N. C. 56. Ohio. Walters v. State, 39 Ohio St. 215. Oklahoma. Wright v. Territory, 5 Okla. 78, 47 Pac. 1069; Shoemaker v. Territory, 4 Okla. 118, 43 Pac. 1059. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Andrews, 234 Pa. 597, 83 Atl. 412; Rudy v. Com., 128 Pa. St. 500, 18 Atl. 344; Watson v. Com., 95 Pa. St. 418; Turner v. Com., 86 Pa. St. 54, 27 Am. Rep. 683; Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. St. 463. South Dakota. State v. Thornton, 10 S. D. 349, 73 N. W. 196, 41 L. R. A. 530. Tennessee. Legere v. State, 111 Tenn. 368, 77 S. W. 1059, 102 Am. St. Rep. 781; Wiley v. State, 5 Baxt. 662; Davis v. State, 5 Baxt. 612. Washington. State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528, 67 Pac. 1097. West Virginia. State v. Lowry, 42 W. Va. 205, 24 S. E. 561. Wisconsin. Emery v. State, 101 Wis. 627, 78 N. W. 145. "The jury may either consider the alibi on the general case, for the purpose of determining whether any view of the alibi in connection with other evidence raises a reasonable doubt; or they may consider whether the proof of alibi alone and of itself raises such a doubt as will require the jury to acquit." Evans v. State, 13 Ga. App. 700, 79 S. E. 916. In South Carolina it is held that an alibi is a special defense, which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, but that this rule is subordinate to the rule that the state must prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, that the preponderance of the evidence is with the defendant when the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, and that if there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant has established the alibi by the greater weight of evidence, he is entitled to the benefit of it, and to a finding that he has established his alibi. State v. Gadsden, 70 S. C. 430, 50 S. E. 16; State v. Anderson, 59 S. C. 229, 37 S. E. 820; State v. Jackson, 36 S. C. 487, 15 S. E. 559, 31 Am. St. Rep. 890. The reasonable doubt which will acquit the accused is the doubt which arises from a consideration of all the evidence, including the criminating evidence introduced by the prosecution as well as that touching the question of the alibi. Flanagan v. People, 214 Ill. 170, 73 N. E. 347. sibly have been at the place where the crime was committed so as to have participated in its commission,28 or where it does not cover the whole of the time in question, or so much of it as to make it impossible that he could have committed the offense,24 but nevertheless, either standing alone or in connection with the other evidence in the case, is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to his guilt. § 192. Effect of failure to prove defense. A failure to prove a defense of alibi does not relieve the state of the burden of proving that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime.25 Nor, as a rule, should it be given any greater weight against the accused than would a failure to prove any other defense.26 But it may be considered as a circumstance against him if the jury are satisfied that the defense was made in bad faith, or was manufactured or false.27 23 It need not be shown that he was at another place, so far away or under such circumstances that he could not have reached the place where the crime was committed so as to have participated in its commission, but it is sufficient if the evidence in respect to alibi, in connection with all the evidence in the case, raises a reasonable doubt of his presence at the time and place of the commission of the crime. Barton v. Territory, 10 Ariz. 68, 85 Pac. 730. 24 Alabama. Beavers v. State, 103 Ala. 36, 15 So. 616; Albritton v. State, 94 Ala. 76, 10 So. 426; McAnally v. State, 74 Ala. 9. California. People v. Morris, 3 Cal. App. 1, 84 Pac. 463. Colorado. Barr v. People, 30 Colo. 522, 71 Pac. 392; Wisdom v. People, 11 Colo. 170, 17 Pac. 519. Indiana. Kaufman v. State, 49 Ind. 248. Louisiana. State v. Ardoin, 49 La. Ann. 1145, 22 So. 620, 62 Am. St. Rep. 678. Michigan. Stuart v. People, 42 Mich. 255, 3 N. W. 863. Missouri, State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 S. W. 449. Nebraska. Henry v. State, 51 Neb. 149, 70 N. W. 924, 66 Am. St. Rep. 450. New Jersey. N. J. L. 31, 37 Atl. 435. Pennsylvania. Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. St. 463; Com. v. Gutshall, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 269. Sherlock v. State. 60 Tennessee. Ford v. State, 101 Tenn. 454, 47 S. W. 703. 25 State v. Bosworth, 170 Iowa 329, 152 N. W. 581; Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. St. 463; Com. v. Gutshall, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 269. 26 Alabama. Albritton v. State, 94 Ala. 76, 10 So. 426. Florida. Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511, 10 So. 106. Illinois. 457. Miller v. People, 39 Ill. X. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS § 193. General principles. If no limitation is prescribed by statute, a person may be prosecuted for a crime at any time after its commission, and the right of the state to prosecute him will not be barred by lapse of time.28 But in most states there are statutes limiting the time within which prosecutions for the various crimes must be commenced.29 Since acts of limitation affect the remedy only, they are peculiarly within the scope of legislative action and control and are regulated by no inflexible rules as to the time prescribed within which It is a circumstance against the defendant, and evidence of his guilt, though not conclusive. State v. Hier, 78 Vt. 488, 63 Atl. 877; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153, 17 Atl. 483. 28 People v. Bailey, 103 N. Y. Misc. 366, 171 N. Y. Supp. 394; Com. v. Wilcox, 56 Pa. Super. Ct. 244; 1 Chitty Crim. Law 160; Reg. v. Hull, 2 Fost. & Tr. 16; Hyde v. Partridge, 3 Salk. 227, 91 Eng. Reprint, 792. In some states there is no statute of limitations in respect to prosecutions for felonies, Bailey v. Com., 130 Ky. 301, 113 S. W. 140; State v. Mallett, 125 N. C. 718, 34 S. E. 651; or offenses punishable with death or by life imprisonment, State v. Swain, 239 Mo. 723, 144 S. W. 427; State v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207; or certain particular crimes, such as murder, People v. Haun, 44 Cal. 96; Sikes v. State, 20 Ga. App. 80, 92 S. E. 553; Troup v. State, 17 Ga. App. 387, 87 S. E. 157; State v. Anderson, 51 La. Ann. 1181, 25 So. 990; People v. Di Pasquale, 161 N. Y. App. Div. 196, 146 N. Y. Supp. 523; State v. Fulkerson, 16 Okla. Cr. 250, 182 Pac. 725; State v. Erving, 19 Wash. 435, 53 Pac. 717; arson, where death ensues, State v. Erving, 19 Wash. 435, 53 Pac. 717; forgery, People v. Dougherty, 266 Ill. 420, 107 N. E. 695; falsification of public records, Cal. Pen. Code, § 799; embezzlement of public money, Cal. Pen. Code, § 799; and see Ex parte Vice, 5 Cal. App. 153, 89 Pac. 983; robbery, forgery or counterfeiting, State v. Anderson, 51 La. Ann. 1181, 25 So. 990; and hence a prosecution therefor may be commenced at any time. See also the statutes of the various states. Statutes providing that prosecutions for murder shall not be barred by lapse of time have been held to include, State v. Erving, 19 Wash. 435, 53 Pac. 717; and not to include, People v. Miller, 12 Cal. 291; manslaughter. 29 See the statutes of the various states. As to the early English statutes, see 1 Chitty Crim. Law 160. The legislature may limit the time for commencing proceedings for the punishment of criminal contempts against courts created by the constitution. Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. App. 651. Statutes of limitation in criminal cases create a bar to the prosecution, and in this respect differ from such statutes in civil cases, which are statutes of repose. State v. Steens195 Pac. 1080; land, Moore v. State, 43 N. J. L. 203, 39 Am. Rep. 558. |