alibi defense in Texas

2015See Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 55-56 (counsel failed to interview or call known fact and alibi witnesses or investigate other exculpatory evidence); Shelton, 841 S.W.2d at 527 (counsel failed to call alibi witness); Doherty v. State, 781 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses, failed to investigate a different possible suspect, an alibi witness, and fact witnesses); see also Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2004See Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 55-56 (counsel failed to interview or call known fact and alibi witnesses or investigate other exculpatory evidence); Shelton, 841 S.W.2d at 527 (counsel failed to call alibi witness); Doherty v. State, 781 S.W.2d 439, 442 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses, failed to investigate a different possible suspect, an alibi witness, and fact witnesses); see also Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (counsel spent only minutes preparing for trial, did not conduct any investigation or call any witnesses); H

2015See Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 55-56 (counsel failed to interview or call known fact and alibi witnesses or investigate other exculpatory evidence); Shelton, 841 S.W.2d at 527 (counsel failed to call alibi witness); Doherty v. State, 781 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses, failed to investigate a different possible suspect, an alibi witness, and fact witnesses); see also Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2004Returning to the issue of whether appellant satisfied the first prong of the Strickland test, the court of appeals noted that the failure to adequately investigate or to present an alibi defense has been held to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel on "many occasions." See , e.g. , Butler v. State , 716 S.W.2d 48, 55-56 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 55-56 (counsel failed to interview or call known fact and alibi witnesses or investigate other exculpatory evidence); Shelton, 841 S.W.2d at 527 (counsel failed to call alibi witness); Doherty v. State, 781 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses, failed to investigate a different possible suspect, an alibi witness, and fact witnesses); see also Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2004See Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 55-56 (counsel failed to interview or call known fact and alibi witnesses or investigate other exculpatory evidence); Shelton, 841 S.W.2d at 527 (counsel failed to call alibi witness); Doherty v. State, 781 S.W.2d 439, 442 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses, failed to investigate a different possible suspect, an alibi witness, and fact witnesses); see also Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (counsel spent only minutes preparing for trial, did not conduct any investigation or call any witnesses); H

2010Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2064 – 65 (1984); Andrews v. State , 159 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Tex. Crim.

2010Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2064 – 65 (1984); Andrews v. State , 159 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 55-56 (counsel failed to interview or call known fact and alibi witnesses or investigate other exculpatory evidence); Shelton, 841 S.W.2d at 527 (counsel failed to call alibi witness); Doherty v. State, 781 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses, failed to investigate a different possible suspect, an alibi witness, and fact witnesses); see also Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2004See Butler, 716 S.W.2d at 55-56 (counsel failed to interview or call known fact and alibi witnesses or investigate other exculpatory evidence); Shelton, 841 S.W.2d at 527 (counsel failed to call alibi witness); Doherty v. State, 781 S.W.2d 439, 442 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (counsel failed to subpoena any witnesses, failed to investigate a different possible suspect, an alibi witness, and fact witnesses); see also Ex parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (counsel spent only minutes preparing for trial, did not conduct any investigation or call any witnesses); H

2015See McGregor v. State, 394 S.W.3d 90 , 123–24 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (by requesting third-party-culpability issues 25 defendant “is essentially raising the defense of alibi”).

2014See McGregor v. State, 394 S.W.3d 90, 123-24 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref d) (by requesting third-party-culpability issues defendant “is essentially raising the defense of alibi”).

2011Moore v. State , 700 S.W.2d 193, 201 (Tex. Crim.

2007Moore v. State , 700 S.W.2d 193, 201 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Dickey v. State, 646 S.W.2d 232, 233 (Tex. Crim.

2013See Dickey, 646 S.W.2d at 233 (holding that an alibi defense raises an issue regarding identity).

2019App. 1974) (holding that eyewitness identification of a defendant was sufficient to support his conviction despite alibi testimony that the jury was free to reject); Johnson v. State, 176 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (“Although appellant presented an alibi defense, what weight to give contradictory testimonial evidence is within the sole province of the jury, as it turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor.”).

2018See Ford, 509 S.W.2d at 318 ; Kesaria, 148 S.W.3d at 640 ; see also Johnson v. State, 176 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd) (“Although appellant presented an alibi defense, what weight to give contradictory testimonial evidence is within the sole province of the jury, as it turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor.”).

2009Johnson , 176 S.W.3d at 78 (citing Cain , 958 S.W.2d at 408–09).

2009Addressing the identification testimony in a neutral light, we observe that while Carlos was tentative in his identification of Powell, (5) Norma was not. (6) Although Powell presented an alibi defense, "what weight to give contradictory testimonial evidence is within the sole province of the jury, as it turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor." Johnson , 176 S.W.3d at 78 (citing Cain , 958 S.W.2d at 408-09 )).

2026As Randolph instructs, “comments about the failure to testify are permissible if they are a ‘fair response’ to the defendant’s claims or assertions.” Id.

2015Id. at 895 (noting that “the prosecutor may comment upon the testimony actually given during the guilt stage and that is not construed as a comment on the defendant’s choice to remain silent during the punishment stage”).

2013See Geisberg, 984 S.W.2d at 251 (holding that appellant was not entitled to an alibi instruction because an alibi defense simply contends the appellant did not commit the crime); Ortiz, 93 S.W.3d at 92 (holding that defense theory contending victim committed suicide simply negated an element of the State’s case).

2013See Geisberg, 984 S.W.2d at 251 (holding that appellant was not entitled to an alibi instruction because an alibi defense simply contends the appellant did not commit the crime); Ortiz, 93 S.W.3d at 92 (holding that defense theory contending victim committed suicide simply negated an element of the State’s case).

1991Extraneous offenses unrelated to the specifics or to any aspect of the alibi defense are not admissible under a theory that they rebut that alibi defense.” Boutwell, 719 S.W.2d at 180 .

1988The Boutwell opinion went on to hold that the “expansion” in McDonald and Johnston was erroneous and that it was inappropriate to admit evidence of extraneous sex offenses committed by the defendant against a third party to show “probability” and “unnatural attention.” In Boutwell, supra, at 179 (opinion on rehearing), it was stated: “We reiterate the ‘probability’ and ‘unnatural attention’ language as justification for admitting extraneous sexual acts between a defendant and a third party is inappropriate and incorrect.

2022Drake v. State, 860 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d).

2004Drake v. State , 860 S.W.2d 182, 185 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d).

2013App. 2000) (holding that the appellant‘s bare assertions, including those of ineffective assistance of counsel, did not entitle him to a hearing on his motion for new trial; the appellant did not allege what further investigation counsel should have conducted, who his alibi witness was, or how an alibi defense could have been persuasive); Jordan, 883 S.W.2d at 665 (holding that the appellant‘s affidavit was conclusory in nature because he failed to say why counsel‘s investigation was deficient, or what any further investigation would have revealed; therefore, the motion for new trial was not s

2007App. 2000) (holding that trial court did not err in refusing a hearing when motion for new trial and affidavit failed to explain what investigation trial counsel should have conducted regarding alibi witness, who appellant = s alleged alibi witness was, or how an alibi defense could have been persuasive given the evidence); Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Tex. Crim.

2008See In re K.J.O., 27 S.W.3d 340, 345 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (concluding attorney wholly failed to investigate the appellant’s involvement in offense and reasonable probability existed that had appellant’s trial counsel questioned the available wit nesses, appellant could have established an alibi and the result of the proceeding would have been different); Thomas, 768 S.W.2d at 337 (holding claim for ineffective assistance of counsel was supported by attorney’s failure to call witnesses for defense of consent in case of aggravated sexual assault).

2008See In re K.J.O., 27 S.W.3d at 345 .

2008See In re K.J.O., 27 S.W.3d 340, 345 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (concluding attorney wholly failed to investigate the appellant’s involvement in offense and reasonable probability existed that had appellant’s trial counsel questioned the available wit nesses, appellant could have established an alibi and the result of the proceeding would have been different); Thomas, 768 S.W.2d at 337 (holding claim for ineffective assistance of counsel was supported by attorney’s failure to call witnesses for defense of consent in case of aggravated sexual assault).

2008See In re K.J.O. , 27 S.W.3d 340, 345 (Tex. App. C Dallas 2000, pet. denied) (concluding attorney wholly failed to investigate the appellant = s involvement in offense and reasonable probability existed that had appellant = s trial counsel questioned the available witnesses, appellant could have established an alibi and the result of the proceeding would have been different); Thomas , 768 S.W.2d at 337 (holding claim for ineffective assistance of counsel was supported by attorney = s failure to call witnesses for defense of consent in case of aggravated sexual assault).

2002Mayfield v. State, 803 S.W.2d 859, 867 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Bruce v. State, 707 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985, pet. ref'd).

2002Mayfield v. State , 803 S.W.2d 859, 867 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Bruce v. State , 707 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1985, pet. ref'd).

2002Mayfield v. State, 803 S.W.2d 859, 867 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Bruce v. State, 707 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985, pet. ref'd).

2002Mayfield v. State , 803 S.W.2d 859, 867 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Bruce v. State , 707 S.W.2d 651, 652 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1985, pet. ref'd).

1997Poullard v. State, 833 S.W.2d 273, 277 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. refd), citing Hines v. State, 571 S.W.2d 322, 325 (Tex.Crim.App., 1978).

1992Hines v. State, 571 S.W.2d 322, 325 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Baize, 790 S.W.2d at 64 .

2021See id. at 922 .

2017Id. at 916-17 .

1998Arney v. State, 580 S.W.2d 836, 840 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Windham v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 580 , 288 S.W.2d 73, 76 (1956). [1] Narrowing when an alibi instruction is required, this Court held the instruction must only be given when the defendant additionally offers affirmative evidence as to his presence elsewhere.

1998Arney v. State, 580 S.W.2d 836, 840 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Windham v. State, 162 Tex.Crim. 580 , 288 S.W.2d 73, 76 (1956). 1 Narrowing when an alibi instruction is required, this Court held the instruction must only be given when the defendant additionally offers affirmative evidence as to his presence elsewhere.

1991Dickey, 646 S.W.2d at 233 ; Wintters v. State, 616 S.W.2d 197, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Wysner v. State, 763 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d).

1987Dickey v. State, 646 S.W.2d at 233 ; Wintters v. State, 616 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Jones v. State, 587 S.W.2d at 120.