Defendant was convicted of four counts of burglary and four counts of theft arising out оf the theft of televisions and other small appliances from several recreational vehicle structures located in a private camping devеlopment. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence on each of thе eight counts and ordered the sentences served consecutively, for a tоtal of 96 years. This direct appeal raises numerous issues, one of which is detеrminative: whether the trial court erred in its instructions relieving the State from the need, when an alibi defense is asserted, to prove the date of the charged offеnses with particularity.
The trial proceeded upon an amended informatiоn which alleged that the burglaries and thefts occurred on or about Septembеr 17, 1981. Pursuant to Ind.Code §§ 35-5-1-1, -2 (Burns 1979 Repl.) (repealed September 1, 1982), defendant filed a notice of alibi defense and request for specific statement from the State. The State's response specified that the alleged offenses occurrеd between the hours of 10:00 p.m., September 16, 1981, and 6:00 a.m., September 17, 1981. During trial, defendant introduced testimony in support of his alibi defense showing that at the time indicated by the Stаte, he was with a former girl friend at her home for the night.
With respect to alibi defense, the jury was instructed as follows:
The defendant has asserted the offense [sic] of alibi. Evidence has been presented that at the time of the commission of the crime or crimes charged in the information, the defendant was at a different place so remote or distant that he could not have committed the crime. If yоu have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was present at the time and place the crime was committed, you should find the defendant not guilty. The information states that the erime or crimes charged was committed on or about September 17, 1981. If you find that the crime or crimes charged were committed by the defendant, the State is not required to prove that it was committed on that particular date.
(R. 1199-1200). Defendant contends that it was reversible error to instruct the jury that "the State is not required to prove that it was committed on that particular datе" when he had asserted an alibi defense, the State had responded with a specific date and time, and the defense had presented alibi evidence at trial We agree.
Although the filing of an alibi defense does not impose a greater burden of proof on the State than would otherwise be required, Merritt v. State (1978),
The above-quoted instruction misinformed the jury that the State was not limited to proving that the crime alleged was committed on the date specified. Under the facts of this case, this instruction should not have been given.
Having detеrmined the instruction was erroneously given, we must ascertain whether reversible errоr exists. Instructions are to be considered as a whole and in reference tо each other, and an error in a particular instruction will not require a revеrsal unless the error is such that the
*838
whole charge of which it forms a part misleads the jury on the law of the case. Bixler v. State (1984), Ind.,
Considering the instructions as a whole, the mislеading nature of the instruction compels us to conclude that reversible error occurred. The instructions informed the jury that even if they believed defendant's alibi dеfense, they could still find him guilty if they found that the charged offenses had been committed аt a time different than that specified by the State. This circumvented and nullified defendant's opportunity to assert his defense of alibi, thereby fatally impairing his right to a fair trial and jeopardizing the reliability of its outcome.
Judgment reversed. Cause remanded to the trial court for new trial.