## Facts

- Juan Carlos Zuniga was prosecuted for bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- The government presented evidence that Zuniga and two other men drove to the bank together, Zuniga entered the bank, and the three left together shortly thereafter.
- The two companions testified that Zuniga went into the bank alone and that they had no knowledge of any robbery.
- Zuniga denied committing the robbery and argued another person was the robber.
- Zuniga’s wife testified that Zuniga was at home at the time of the robbery, offering alibi evidence.
- Zuniga requested an alibi jury instruction explaining that the government bore the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was present at the crime scene and that Zuniga had no burden to prove the alibi.
- The district court refused to give an alibi instruction, and the jury convicted Zuniga.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court committed reversible error by refusing to give a requested alibi instruction when evidence supported an alibi theory.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held it was error to refuse an alibi instruction when the defense presented evidence supporting that theory.
- The court concluded the instructional error was not harmless because it risked juror misunderstanding about the government’s burden to prove presence beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- When the defense presents some evidence that the defendant was elsewhere at the time of the offense, the defendant is entitled, upon request, to an alibi instruction.
- An alibi instruction must clarify that the government bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s presence at the time and place of the crime.
- The defendant has no burden to prove an alibi; alibi evidence functions to create reasonable doubt.
- The trial court’s duty to instruct on alibi is triggered by supporting evidence, even if the alibi evidence is weak or subject to credibility disputes.

## Conclusion

Because alibi evidence was presented and a proper alibi instruction was requested, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on alibi improperly risked shifting or obscuring the burden of proof on presence; the Ninth Circuit therefore reversed and ordered a new trial.


United States v. Zuniga, 6 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1993)