defendant to establish claim in Michigan

2021People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 450 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010).

2021People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 450 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010).

2021If the notice given by the defendant does not state, as particularly as is known to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, the name of a witness to be called in behalf of the defendant to establish a defense specified in section 20 or 20a, the court shall exclude the testimony of a witness which is offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing that defense. [Emphasis added.] In People v Travis, 443 Mich 668, 679 ; 505 NW2d 563 (1993), our Supreme Court held that the language “or at such other time as the court may direct” in MCL 768.20 “preserves the trial court’s discretion to

2021If the notice given by the defendant does not state, as particularly as is known to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, the name of a witness to be called in behalf of the defendant to establish a defense specified in section 20 or 20a, the court shall exclude the testimony of a witness which is offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing that defense. [Emphasis added.] In People v Travis, 443 Mich 668, 679 ; 505 NW2d 563 (1993), our Supreme Court held that the language “or at such other time as the court may direct” in MCL 768.20 “preserves the trial court’s discretion to

2018“For a defendant to establish a claim that he was denied his state or federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, he must show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this was so prejudicial to him that he was denied a fair trial.” People v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 302 ; 613 NW2d 694 (2000).

2018“For a defendant to establish a claim that he was denied his state or federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, he must show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this was so prejudicial to him that he was denied a fair trial.” People v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 302 ; 613 NW2d 694 (2000).

2026People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2026People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2023The written notice also “shall include specific information as to the place at which the accused claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense.” Id.

2021Id. -7- For a defendant to establish a claim of ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

2020The defendant’s notice shall include 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). 3 People v Williams, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 23, 2019 (Docket No. 342893). -3- specific information as to the place at which the accused claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense.

2020The defendant’s notice shall include 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). 3 People v Williams, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 23, 2019 (Docket No. 342893). -3- specific information as to the place at which the accused claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense.

2020If the defendant fails to file and serve the notice required by MCL 768.20, “the trial court is required to exclude evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing an alibi.” People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 20 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009).

2020If the defendant fails to file and serve the notice required by MCL 768.20, “the trial court is required to exclude evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing an alibi.” People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 20 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009).

2000Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 303 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).

2000Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 303 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).

2000Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 303 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).

2000Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 303 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).

1993If the notice given by the prosecuting attorney does not state, as particularly as is known to the prosecuting attorney, the name of a witness to be called in rebuttal of the defense of alibi ..., the court shall exclude the testimony of a witness which is offered by the prosecuting attorney for the purpose of rebutting that defense. [10] Although Merritt, supra, involved a case under the pre-1974 version of the statute, this Court noted in dictum that "[a] comparison of the old and new language indicates that, among other changes, the preclusion sanction is now mandatory." 396 Mich 74 , n 1.

1985People v Harlan, 129 Mich App 769 ; 344 NW2d 300 (1983).

1985People v Harlan, 129 Mich App 769 ; 344 NW2d 300 (1983).