OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL, May 2, 1958:

The defendant, Jerold Richardson, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal he seeks a new trial because of alleged trial errors.

Defendant, together with James Ryder and James Graham, was indicted for the murder of Roy Wunder, who was found dead at about 12:50 a.m. on Monday, September 20, 1954, in a taproom operated by him known as "Stony Creek Tavern" which is located on the Baltimore Pike, Springfield, Delaware County, Pa. Defendant was 17 years of age at the time of the crime. All three of the individuals involved applied for and were granted separate trials.

Defendant, through his court-appointed attorney, applied prior to trial, and during the trial for a change of venue; these applications were refused. Defendant, prior to trial and during the course of the examination of jurors on voir dire, applied for a continuance; these applications were refused.

Roy Wunder, the deceased, went to the Stony Creek Tavern sometime on Sunday evening, September 19, 1954. At approximately 12:50 a.m., on Monday morning, September 20th, Maurice Gouse was operating his automobile in an eastwardly direction towards Philadelphia and as he passed the Stony Creek Tavern his attention was directed to the breaking of glass. He looked at the Tavern building and saw two men, whom he described as teenagers because of their dress and build, come through the window. He then noticed these same two individuals run to an automobile which was parked on an intersecting street near the Tavern. Gouse saw the lights of the automobile go on and the automobile start up, turn onto the Baltimore Pike, and then proceed in a westwardly direction towards Media, Pa. Gouse attempted to follow the get-away car in his own automobile, but was out-distanced. He then reported the incident to police officers who accompanied him to the Stony Creek Tavern and after gaining entrance, discovered the body of Roy Wunder.

Wunder's body was lying in the back of the barroom; there were bar stools overturned, a vase on the floor, and part of a top of a stool and broken water glasses on the floor. Gouse found a bullet on the cocktail lounge seat near the front of the barroom. This was proved to be the fatal bullet and was identified as a .38 S. W. caliber. The gun used in the killing has never been found. Gouse gave the police a description of the automobile he pursued although he was not certain of some of its characteristics. The automobile as described by Gouse has never been located. It was later discovered that entrance to the taproom was gained through a skylight that led into the men's washroom.

Defendant was in the custody of the Philadelphia Police Department from December 14, 1954 until December 28, 1954, at which time he escaped from custody. He was rearrested on January 3, 1955. Sergeant McCrory and other officers questioned Richardson the same morning about some 60 or more burglaries in Philadelphia. At that time McCrory had no knowledge of the Stony Creek Tavern killing.

McCrory testified that defendant told him on January third that he and James Ryder and James Graham, had driven to the Stony Creek Tavern and that Graham and Ryder entered the Tavern to rob it while he, Richardson, remained in the automobile. McCrory notified his superior who in turn notified the Delaware County authorities. That afternoon defendant admitted to Sergeant McCrory in detail his participation in the robbery. However, when he was informed that a murder had taken place at the Tavern, he denied any participation in the robbery. On January 4th, at about 11:45 p.m., after being questioned about the murder of Wunder, he signed a confession admitting his participation in the robbery during which Wunder was murdered.

Defendant's confession was read to him by the District Attorney of Delaware County, Raymond R. Start, in the presence of six other persons who signed defendant's confession as witnesses. In addition three other police officers and the official court stenographer were present, although they did not sign as witnesses. Seven of those who were present when the defendant's confession was read to him and when he executed it testified at the trial; five of the seven, including the District Attorney, Mr. Start, testified unequivocally that defendant voluntarily made and signed the confession and was not coerced, threatened or given any promises. The other two witnesses were not asked this question.

The relevant and material portions of defendant's confession (in question and answer form) are as follows: "Q. Do you know why you have been arrested? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Homicide. Q. Do you want to make a voluntary statement? A. Yes. Q. It is my duty to warn you that anything you say or sign can be used against you at the time of your trial in court. Do you understand that? A. Yes. Q. In making this statement, do you make it of your own free will, without fear, force, threats or promises? A. Yes. Q. Jerold, will you go on in your own words and tell us what you know concerning the shooting and murder of Roy E. Wunder, 46 years, white, proprietor of the Stony Creek Tavern, 334 Baltimore Avenue, Springfield Township, Delaware County, Pa., which occurred on Monday morning, September 30, 1954, at about 12:45 or 12:50 a. m. A. I met James Ryder about 12:00 p.m. Sunday afternoon, September 19, at 7th and Susquehanna Avenue. We got a trolley car and went down to 68th and Elmwood Avenue and went into a luncheonette known as 'Tony's'. We met Jim Graham. He told us about a gun store out on the Baltimore Pike which we could burglarize. We stayed around there until 3:00 o'clock and then went into the center of town in Philadelphia in Jim's car, Jim Graham driving. It was a 1950 Nash station wagon dark, I don't know what color. We went to 13th and Market in town and hung around the Arcadia until about dusk and then went out on the Baltimore Pike and I was driving at the time and Jim Graham directed. As we were passing the tavern, Jim stated that he knew of it being robbed before or that he himself robbed it. He said that we would find a small cabinet safe inside; that he and Ryder would go in while I stayed slouched in the car. They left the car and that was the last I seen of them until I heard a sound that I cannot identify; a few minutes later the breaking of glass. Then they came running around the corner of the building and jumped in the car. I shot out, down past the light, made a right and made another right a couple blocks down, that's the last I remember, Jim was directing. I am not familiar with the neighborhood until we finally got back to Tony's. When me and Ryder emerged from the car, Jim keeping the gun in the car. Me and Ryder then got a cab and dropped him off at 7th and York and proceeded home myself. Q. Is everything you have told us in this statement the truth? A. Yes. Q. Can you read and write the English language? A. Yes. Q. How high did you go in school? A. Twelfth grade."

". . . Q. Did Ryder and Graham have a gun? A. They both had guns. Q. Did you know what kind of guns they were? A. Two revolvers. Q. Do you know what caliber? A. I believe one was a .38, might have both been .38's, I am not sure. Q. Where did you first see these revolvers? A. Outside Tony's. Q. Did they have them in the car? A. Yes. Q. Did you see them? A. Yes. Q. And they took these guns to the tavern? A. I assumed they did. Q. What else did they take, if anything? A. Some talk of mentioning about a bar to get into the place. . . . Q. What were your duties on this job besides driving the car? A. I was to be the lookout. Q. Now after Ryder and Graham went into this taproom, what was the next thing that occurred? A. I heard some noise I couldn't identify, not too loud, but a noise. Several minutes later I heard a glass break. Q. When was the first time you saw either of these boys after you heard the glass break? A. About thirty seconds later I seen them come around the corner. Q. What, if anything, did they say when they arrived at the car? A. Graham said, 'You're crazy.' Q. Graham said, 'You're crazy' to whom? A. To Ryder. Q. Anything else? A. I asked what happened and Graham said, 'Ask him.' Q. Meaning Ryder? A. Yes. Q. Did you ask Ryder what happened? A. Ryder told me to 'Get the hell out of here.' Q. What did you do when Ryder told you to 'get the hell out'? A. Made a right on Baltimore Pike going west. . . . Q. And returning from the taproom by the way of the route you described to Tony's place, was there anything said about the guns? A. They said they had better get rid of them, Jim said that, he will take care of them. Q. What Jim do you mean? A. Graham. Q. Let me understand this. James Ryder said something about the guns and Jim Graham said he would take care of them. A. He said, 'Keep cool,' 'I will take care of them.' Q. Did he say what he was going to do with them? A. No. . . . Q. Who described to you what occurred inside the taproom the morning Roy Wunder was killed? A. Ryder. Q. When did he describe this to you? A. In a cab. Q. Was that on your way to 7th and York? A. Yes. Q. What did he say? A. He told me Graham fired the shot. He said a man threw a chair at him and Graham went to duck and as he ducked both guns were cocked and pressure, Graham's pressure, his finger on the trigger, it startled Graham. That's what Ryder told me. I asked Graham and he told me just the opposite. Q. What did Graham say to you? A. I asked him what happened. I said who shot him. Red said 'you killed a man.' Graham said, 'I didn't shoot him, Ryder shot him.' . . . Q. On the 3rd of January, 1955, did you tell Sergeant McCrory a story? A. Yes. Q. Was that story you told Sergeant McCrory in City Hall in Philadelphia, a true story? A. Yes. Q. But you didn't tell him the complete story? The story you are telling me now, did you? A. No, almost the same thing."

On January 5, 1955, defendant, Ryder, and Graham were taken to the Stony Creek Tavern where Ryder pointed out to the police the place where the automobile was parked and defendant confirmed Ryder's statement.

Defendant testified in his defense. He denied having participated in the robbery and repudiated his oral and his written confession. He testified that he did not sign the confession until after he had read a statement signed by Ryder in which the latter allegedly stated that Richardson had also gone into the taproom. Defendant stated that he did not intend to sign any statement until after he was shown Ryder's statement, and that he signed his confession only because the police suggested that he put himself in the car and thus fully or partially escape responsibility for the crime.

Moreover, with respect to the conversation with Sergeant McCrory, defendant testified on direct examination — in an attempt to explain his oral confession: "Q. All right, now, will you go ahead with your conversation with Sergeant McCrory. A. I don't remember the exact conversation. Mr. McCrory did ask me about the Springfield job, which I told him yes, I done. Then — Q. At that time did you know what he was talking about? A. No sir, I didn't know anything about it. I thought it was just another burglary, and I realized they had me for about 60 or 70 by that time, and I did not want to argue with the man about it. Q. So what was the next thing that was said about it? A. Well, he related to me about where the place was on Baltimore Pike, I can't get the exact conversation, the exact words that were used. Q. Was there anything said by him at that time regarding any person being shot? A. Well, sir, he continued to tell me about this burglary; and I continued to admit it up to the time that he said that the man was shot and I denied it then. I told him that I was talking about something else, another job completely out on the Baltimore Pike, it was a gun store, I said I didn't know anything about that. He smiled at me, patted me on the shoulder and walked away, saying I understand."

On cross-examination the defendant testified: "Q. Now on the 4th when you originally told Sergeant McCrory about being out, being on that Springfield job, you likewise told him Graham and Ryder were with you? A. That's right. Q. And that was before either of them signed the statement concerning you? A. I did not realize what it was at the time. Q. Later you said today that you put them in because they were trying to put you in the middle, is that right? A. That is why I signed the statement I said, sir. Q. Yes, but here you put Ryder and Graham in verbally that morning before you knew they signed statements? A. That's right. Q. Well then it is not true that you signed this statement because they were putting you in the middle, was it? A. I thought that they had done it and that they were trying to frame me for it. Q. That is why you signed it? A. That is when I signed the statement. Q. But they hadn't put you in the middle in the morning when you told it verbally that you were out to Springfield and Graham and Ryder were with you? A. No, they did not put me in it then. Q. You were putting them in then? A. No. . . . Q. Then you were willing to go for the burglary, but when you learned he died you wouldn't, is that right? A. I wasn't going to go for no killing I didn't do. Q. But you went for the burglary part of it? A. Well they had me charged for 70, and I wanted to get in the cell and lay down, I didn't want to argue with him; they had worked me over that night before, I didn't want nothing like that again."

In repudiating the written confession the defendant testified as follows: "Q. When was the next time you were questioned? A. I believe at nine o'clock that night. Q. And who was present at that time? A. Leon Pitz, Sergeant McCrory, a man from the Juvenile Aid, Earl Allen, and I believe there were two or three more. Q. And what was the general conversation at that time? A. Well first they brought me in and asked me the same thing, am I going to tell the same thing that Sergeant McCrory told them? And I said no, I didn't have nothing to do with it. I denied it for 15 or 20 minutes. And there was another man came in, I don't know if it was Inspector Driscoll or who it was, they had a statement signed by Ryder. Do you know Jimmy Ryder's signature. I said yes. He said is that it? I said I don't know. How come you don't know? You just told me you knew his signature. I said it looks like his signature. He said, read the statement. I said, I don't want to read that statement. They kept on me, read it, read it, read it. So I finally looked down, they had it turned back to a page; I read that part on the page. And in the meantime, why, I don't know, about five minutes after that I read, I read the statement, I read the whole thing from beginning to the end. And I still told Mr. Allen to bring in Graham, whom they told me was out there making a statement. They said his father made him make a statement. He said, see what these two guys are trying to do? They are going to put you in the middle. Sergeant McCrory was sitting beside me, I believe I was handcuffed to Mr. Pitz at the time. Mr. Allen got up and said the hell with you, go burn anyway, we got one; and he walked out. That is when Sergeant McCrory put his hand on my shoulder and said, look, son, there is an out for you, you were in the car, they can't get you. I said, look, I am accessory before and after the fact if I put myself in the car. He said, look, these two guys are trying to put you in the middle. Then I told him, all right, that I would make a statement, that I would put myself out in the car; which he called Mr. Allen back in and I made the statement."

Richardson's testimony was often so evasive, conflicting, inconsistent and false as to be obviously unworthy of belief. In addition to the testimony above quoted, defendant on cross-examination testified that Graham, whom he had always implicated in the robbery and murder, should not have been involved even in his "false stories and confession"; rather, another individual by the name of Lawson was the person he really meant to implicate in his stories and confession, although even these he testified were false. We also note that during the course of the trial a large number of convictions for burglaries and robberies against defendant were introduced into evidence (a) to assist the jury in fixing the penalty, and (b) for the purpose of testing defendant's credibility.

Defendant also presented an alibi to the effect that he attended a dance on the Sunday night in question with a "friend" known to him as Martin Davis. He was corroborated in this respect by the testimony of Ernest M. Greaves, Jr., a member of the U.S. Air Force, who testified that he was the individual known to the defendant as Martin Davis. Greaves stated that he used the name Martin Davis because that was his name prior to the remarriage of his mother early in his life. However, Greaves failed to satisfactorily explain the use of the first name "Ernest" instead of "Martin", along with the surname of "Greaves". Greaves recalled having attended a dance with defendant and fixed the particular night in question because it was the night following a wedding attended by him and the defendant. There was proof that there was a dance on the night in question. Defendant's father also recalled having seen Greaves and the defendant in the Richardson home on Sunday evening, September 19, 1954, although he was unable to fix the exact time.

Defendant bases his motion for a new trial on three alleged trial errors. The first and second alleged errors are closely inter-related and will be disposed of together. Defendant contends that the lower Court erred in refusing his repeated applications for (a) a change of venue, and (b) a continuance. In support of these contentions he states that the Stony Creek Tavern murder had received a tremendous amount of publicity through newspaper articles and detective stories, thus creating undue excitement and inflammatory public opinion against him. Furthermore, he argues that he was further prejudiced through some additional publicity which resulted from some beer drinking by him and one of his co-defendants in the cell block of the courthouse during the same term of court. More importantly, he contends he was further prejudiced because an alleged confederate, James Ryder, had just been tried in the same courtroom and because the jury trying him had just retired for purposes of deliberation. To further substantiate his contentions he states: "There were 100 jurors called on voir dire and of that number, more than 60% had read about the case and 10% admitted having a preconceived opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the appellant."

In dismissing defendant's initial petition for a change in venue, the lower Court said: "We have read all of the exhibits furnished by Counsel and cannot find any undue sensationalism in the articles. It might, of course, be better if articles covering crime could be withheld from print until the case is over, but this is not the accepted manner of procedure in America. However, we are not satisfied that the defendants' rights have been prejudiced and believe that they will have a fair trial by jurors, who do not know about the occurrence despite the publicity."

In regard to this issue, a review of the record discloses that many jurors who did read of the case in the newspapers, did so only at the time of the murder — 13 months before — and not recently. Some of these individuals testified, moreover, that they only read the headlines. Even more important, Richardson concedes that no prospective juror who admitted having an opinion about the case was accepted as a member of the jury. There is no merit in this contention.

It is clearly established that the grant or refusal of a change of venue or of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial Court: Commonwealth v. Capps, 382 Pa. 72, 114 A.2d 338; Commonwealth v. Simmons, 361 Pa. 391, 65 A.2d 353; Commonwealth v. Flood, 302 Pa. 190, 195, 196, 153 A. 152, 153; Commonwealth v. Deni, 317 Pa. 289, 292, 293, 176 A. 919, 920, 921; Commonwealth v. Lockard, 325 Pa. 56, 62, 63, 188 A. 755, 758; Commonwealth v. Schurtz, 337 Pa. 405, 408, 409, 10 A.2d 378, 380; Commonwealth v. Chavis, 357 Pa. 158, 166, 167, 53 A.2d 96, 100.

In Commonwealth v. Capps, 382 Pa., supra, the Court said (page 77): "The first alleged trial error is the refusal of the court below to grant defendant's requests for continuance and change of venue. At the request of defendant's counsel the trial fixed during the week of March 22, 1954, was continued until April 26, a period of three months after date of the killing. The learned trial Judge ruled that the newspaper stories were not so inflammatory and biased in factual presentation as to cause, or be evidence of, public prejudice or hysteria. The granting, or refusing, of a change of venue or continuance, is within the sound discretion of the trial court: Commonwealth v. Simmons, 361 Pa. 391, 65 A.2d 353, and the many cases cited therein. We have reviewed all the evidence and do not regard that the trial Judge abused his discretion."

Furthermore, what this Court said in Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 387 Pa. 602, 128 A.2d 897 (page 611) is appropriate and controlling on the question of prejudice by the jury: "The language of the Court in Commonwealth v. McGrew, 375 Pa. 518, 525, 100 A.2d 467, is likewise applicable in the instant case: 'The fact that a juror has read or heard about a case and has an impression or an opinion, or a prejudice is not ground for rejection for cause if he testifies and the Court believes that his opinion is not fixed and that he can and will make up his mind solely from the evidence which will be presented at the trial of the case: Com. v. Crossmire, 156 Pa. 304, 308, 27 A. 40; Com. v. Nye, 240 Pa. 359, 370, 87 A. 585; Com. v. Eagan, 190 Pa. 10, 42 A. 374; Com. v. DePalma, 268 Pa. 25, 100 A. 756.' "

We find no abuse of discretion by the trial Court, and there is no merit in any of defendant's aforesaid contentions.

The third and most important contention made by defendant is that the trial Judge in his charge to the jury committed reversible error by (a) inadequately charging the jury on alibi; and (b) failing to charge the jury that the evidence of alibi may, with the other facts in the case, raise a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. The jury was charged by the trial Judge, inter alia, as follows:

"The burden is on the Commonwealth to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Jerold Richardson, is guilty of the crime charged against him before you can convict him. That burden never shifts. That burden remains with the Commonwealth from the beginning of the case down to the very end, and the defendant is not required to take the stand nor is he required to interpose to the jury a defense. And even though he might not take the stand or might not interpose a defense, the burden would still remain with the Commonwealth to convince you jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, which the court will in a little while define, of his guilt before you could find him guilty.

"Now on the other hand there has been not only a denial in this case from the witness stand that this defendant participated, but there has been something else brought up in the defendant's case as an affirmative defense, and that is the question of alibi; because if this defendant convinces you by a fair preponderance of the evidence — not beyond a reasonable doubt, he does not have that burden, but if he convinces you by the weight of the evidence, by a fair preponderance, the balancing of the scales in his favor, that his alibi is true, then of course he could not have been at the place where he is said to have been by the Commonwealth, he would have been at another place and he could not have committed this crime. . . .

"So that the Commonwealth's burden, in order to convince you of the defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt that they must convince you; the defendant, on the other hand, in interposing an affirmative defense such as alibi, need only raise the issue by a fair preponderance of evidence."

The trial Judge further charged the jury: "Now, members of the jury, this defendant is innocent until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If an endeavor to determine from the evidence any point essential to the Commonwealth's case, you hesitate as between two conclusions and find yourselves mentally reluctant to reach a conclusion and, after considering the evidence from all angles you still hesitate, that is what the law terms a reasonable doubt and the defendant is entitled to its benefit. . . . The reluctance must not come out of your heart, but it must be one which arises in your minds after consideration of all the evidence."

It is worthwhile repeating that the appellant made an oral confession, a written confession, and thereafter participated in a re-enactment of the crime. Of course, he subsequently repudiated, but could not satisfactorily explain, these confessions. His principal, if not sole, defense was that of an alibi, viz., on the evening of the murder he attended a dance in Philadelphia. Thus the paramount issue in the entire case was whether defendant was present at the scene of the crime and whether he participated in the crime as set forth in his confessions and re-enactment of the robbery. Undoubtedly, the issue was clear to the jury and on the basis of the evidence they rendered a verdict of murder in the first degree.

The trial Judge in his charge, covering 56 pages, clearly and with absolute fairness, discussed the testimony of both the Commonwealth and the defendant, including the evidence pertaining to alibi. The Court correctly charged the jury on the subject of "reasonable doubt" and "the burden and measure of proof required for the defense of alibi. On many occasions throughout the charge, the trial Judge stated that the burden was on the Commonwealth to prove the defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and that burden never shifted. A reading of the entire charge shows clearly that the jury was fairly and adequately instructed and was not misguided with respect to the fundamental proposition that defendant was entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt which arose from the evidence.

Defendant contends that the trial Judge committed fundamental error in failing to charge the jury "that the evidence of alibi, may with the other facts in the case, raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt." The trial Judge, at the end of his charge gave defendant the opportunity to call to the Court's attention any omission, correction, or error in the charge. Counsel for defendant made three specific requests, but failed to request any addition to the charge relative to the issue which he now advances concerning alibi. Ordinarily, this failure would be sufficient to bar consideration of this question on appeal: Commonwealth v. Barnak, 357 Pa. 391, 54 A.2d 865. Nevertheless, we shall consider this issue on its merits.

In Commonwealth v. Jordan, 328 Pa. 439, 196 A. 10, the Court correctly said (pages 446, 447, 448): "The law is firmly established that the measure of proof required for the defense of alibi is merely a preponderance of the evidence, or, as it is sometimes stated, proof 'to the satisfaction of the jury.' Even if not thus proved, however, the evidence in support of the alibi may, with the other facts in the case, [or may be sufficient of itself to] raise the reasonable doubt of guilt which entitles a defendant to acquittal: Rudy v. Commonwealth 128 Pa. 500, 507, 508; Commonwealth v. Andrews, 234 Pa. 597, 604; Commonwealth v. Delfino, 259 Pa. 272, 279; Commonwealth v. Barrish, 297 Pa. 160, 169, 170, 171; Commonwealth v. Stein, 305 Pa. 567, 570, 571; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101, 110, 111, 112, 113. . . . 'The law of our State requires specific instructions to be given relative to the burden of proof in an alibi, and the degree of persuasion necessary [by a preponderance of the evidence] to support a conclusion that the accused was not at the place where the crime was committed. . . .' . . . 'The jury should have been informed that the defendant need only prove an alibi by a preponderance of the evidence. This failure was a fatal oversight': Commonwealth v. Trygar, 121 Pa. Super. 525, 528. See also Commonwealth v. Yancer, 125 Pa. Super. 352, 354, 356." Commonwealth v. Blanchard, 345 Pa. 289, 26 A.2d 303, is analogous to and rules the instant case. There the sufficiency of the trial Court's charge concerning defendant's alibi was raised. Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) STERN, speaking for the Court, said (page 291): ". . . In regard to defendant's attempt to prove an alibi, the trial judge not only charged that such a defense could be established by the mere preponderance of the evidence, but he added that an alibi 'is the most perfect defense in the world'; he did not need specifically to state, although it is true, that the evidence offered in support of an alibi may be sufficient of itself to raise a reasonable doubt."

Notwithstanding isolated excerpts from several decisions which state the law differently or more broadly, that is a correct statement of the law.

Furthermore, what this Court said in Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 46, 53, is particularly pertinent in this case: "In Com. v. Barnak, 357 Pa., supra, this Court, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice MAXEY, said (page 406): 'We also said in Commonwealth v. Schurtz, 337 Pa. 405, 411, 10 A.2d 378: "Isolated excerpts torn from the heart of the charge cannot be considered apart from the context, and if the whole is accurate and fair as it was in this case, the parts objected to do not form a proper basis for reversal." This same principle was enunciated by this Court in Com v. Glenn, 321 Pa. 241, 183 A. 763; Com. v. Becker, 326 Pa. 105, 191 A. 351; Com. v. Stelma, 327 Pa. 317, 192 A. 906.' The same principle was reiterated in Com. v. Patskin, 372 Pa. 402, 422, 93 A.2d 704; Com. v. Moyer, 357 Pa. 181, 187, 53 A.2d 736; Com. v. Holley, 358 Pa. 296, 302, 56 A.2d 546; Com. v. Cargill, 357 Pa. 510, 513, 55 A.2d 373; Com. v. Almeida, 362 Pa. 596, 600, 68 A.2d 595."

Defendant cites two prior decisions of this Court to support his contention that the charge constituted reversible error: Commonwealth v. Mills, 350 Pa. 478, 39 A.2d 572, and Commonwealth v. New, 354 Pa. 188, 47 A.2d 450. These are distinguishable from the instant case.

In Commonwealth v. Mills, 350 Pa., supra, the charge with respect to alibi was ambiguous and for this reason misleading and prejudicial, and solely because of this a new trial was granted.

In Commonwealth v. New, 354 Pa., supra, (a) because the charge of the trial Court was so inaccurate and misleading, and (b) also because the Commonwealth's evidence was so weak and the evidence of alibi was so strong, this Court said (page 214): "The jury must also be instructed that 'the evidence in support of the alibi may, with other facts in the case, raise the reasonable doubt of guilt which entitled a defendant to acquittal.' "^fn_ The opinion of this Court was predicated upon the failure of the trial Judge to "make it clear to the jury that the evidence as to an alibi may generate in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt." The trial Judge's charge in that case was filled with statements which, because of inaccuracy or ambiguity, were highly prejudicial, and the language of this Court's opinion must be considered in connection with the facts of that case.

If it is impossible to reconcile all the prior decisions in Pennsylvania, on this narrow but important point, we reiterate that the accurate statement of the law is that which is laid down in Commonwealth v. Blanchard, 345 Pa., supra.

The trial Court's charge to the jury considered in its entirety correctly sets forth the law as to alibi, and the burden of proof of the Commonwealth, which never changes, of proving that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no reversible error.

Judgment and sentence affirmed.