alibi defense in Mississippi

2019In Tubbs v. State, 402 So. 2d 830, 834-35 (Miss. 1981), the Court held “an alibi defense presents a question of fact to be resolved by the jury.” Although a jury is “under [no] duty to accept an alibi defense . . . [the jury] must consider all of the testimony in determining the guilt of innocence of an accused.” Id.

2019In Tubbs v. State, 402 So. 2d 830, 834-35 (Miss. 1981), the Court held “an alibi defense presents a question of fact to be resolved by the jury.” Although a jury is “under [no] duty to accept an alibi defense . . . [the jury] must consider all of the testimony in determining the guilt of innocence of an accused.” Id.

2024Young, 451 So. 2d at 210 .

2024Young, 451 So. 2d at 210 .

2019The majority follows the law in applying precedent to the particular facts of this case. 14 See also Sanford v. State, 372 So. 2d 276, 279-80 (Miss. 1979) (finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s alibi instruction where the instruction contained “erroneous language” that was not supported by testimony and where “ the instruction seems to focus and comment upon only the alibi testimony in isolation from the rest of the evidence . . .”). 18 consider whether the State’s race-neutral reasons were given as a pretext for discriminatory intent, the trial court fa

2017Young v. State , 451 So.2d 208 , 210 (Miss.1984) ; Sanford v. State , 372 So.2d 276 , 279 (Miss. 1979) ; Newton v. State , 229 Miss. 267 , 274-75, 90 So.2d 375 , 378 (1956). ¶ 55.

2024As our precedent makes clear, “an alibi defense involves something more than a simple denial by the defendant that he was present at the precise time the crime was committed.” Ford, 230 So. 3d at 320 (¶10).

2020Instead, “the law relating to an alibi defense involves something more than a simple denial by the defendant that he was present at the precise time the crime was committed.” Id. at (¶10).

2021“Where the proof does not support an alibi defense, the instruction should not be granted.” Id.

2014However, “[w]here proof does not support an alibi defense, the instruction should not be granted.” Cochran v. State, 913 So.2d 371, 375 (Miss.Ct.App.2005). ¶ 16.

2001This Court ruled in Love v. State, 441 So.2d 1353, 1356 (Miss.1983), that litigants in all cases, including defendants in criminal prosecutions, are entitled to assert alternative theories, even inconsistent alternative theories.

1998This Court ruled in Love v. State, 441 So.2d 1353, 1356 (Miss. 1983), that litigants in all cases, including defendants in criminal prosecutions, are entitled to assert alternative theories, even inconsistent alternative theories.

2001We agreed and said: In Kennedy v. State, 278 So.2d 404, 406 (Miss.1973), this Court held when an accused is being tried for a serious offense, the jury is entitled to hear any testimony that the appellant might have in the way of an alibi or defense.

1998We agreed and said: In Kennedy v. State, 278 So.2d 404, 406 (Miss. 1973), this Court held when an accused is being tried for a serious offense, the jury is entitled to hear any testimony that the appellant might have in the way of an alibi or defense.

2024I was telling you what -- when he asked me about the times I’m not sure exactly what time I was there, but around that time; so I’m assuming, yes, sir.” 9 State, 613 So. 2d 1186 , 1191 (Miss. 1993) (“[I]t is well settled the jury is under no obligation to accept an alibi defense asserted by the accused . . . .” (quoting Lee v. State, 457 So. 2d 920, 924 (Miss. 1984))). b.

2018Cf. Burrell v. State , 613 So.2d 1186 , 1191 (Miss. 1993) (noting our well-settled law that a jury is under no obligation to accept an alibi defense asserted by the accused and his witnesses).

2024I was telling you what -- when he asked me about the times I’m not sure exactly what time I was there, but around that time; so I’m assuming, yes, sir.” 9 State, 613 So. 2d 1186 , 1191 (Miss. 1993) (“[I]t is well settled the jury is under no obligation to accept an alibi defense asserted by the accused . . . .” (quoting Lee v. State, 457 So. 2d 920, 924 (Miss. 1984))). b.

1998Burrell, 613 So.2d at 1191 ; Lee v. State, 457 So.2d 920 (Miss.1984); Ruffin v. State, 447 So.2d 113 (Miss.1984).

2016Wilson cites Holmes v. State, 481 So.2d 319 (Miss.1985), as support for his argument that the alibi instruction submitted by the defendant in that case is the instruction that should have been given to the jury in this case.

2016The same is true of Wilson’s contention that his trial counsel should have objected to the State’s alibi instruction, which, as noted above, is consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Holmes , ¶ 24.

2019Moreover, “[t]he specific purpose of alibi defense discovery is to allow the state an opportunity of investigation and discovery of evidence, if any, which may rebut the anticipated alibi defense.” Robinson v. State, 247 So. 3d 1212, 1227 (¶30) (Miss. 2018) (quoting Coleman v. State, 749 So. 2d 1003, 1009 (¶14) (Miss. 1999)).

2018URCCC 9.05 (emphasis added). "[T]he specific purpose of alibi defense discovery is to allow the state an opportunity of investigation and discovery [of] evidence, if any, which may rebut the anticipated alibi defense." Coleman v. State , 749 So.2d 1003 , 1009 (Miss. 1999).

2024In issuing this holding, the Court overruled a series of cases from this Court that held to the contrary, abrogating Golden, 323 So. 3d at 1129 (¶16); Sims v. State, 213 So. 3d 90, 101 (¶41) (Miss.

2022Moreover, “[t]he law relating to an alibi defense involves something more than a simple denial by the defendant that he was present at the precise time the crime was committed.” Sims v. State, 213 So. 3d 90, 101 (¶43) (Miss.

2019Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Owens, 809 So. 2d at 746-47 (¶¶7-8)), this Court held that “[t]he law relating to an alibi defense involves something more than a simple denial by the defendant that he was present at the precise time the crime was committed[;]” rather, “the defense requires evidence that the defendant’s location at the relevant time was ‘so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party.’” [(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 71 (7th ed. 1999))].11 The Sims Court explained that “a defendant in close enough physical proximity to have committed the crime may deny

2019Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Owens, 809 So. 2d at 746-47 (¶¶7-8)), this Court held that “[t]he law relating to an alibi defense involves something more than a simple denial by the defendant that he was present at the precise time the crime was committed[;]” rather, “the defense requires evidence that the defendant’s location at the relevant time was ‘so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party.’” [(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 71 (7th ed. 1999))].11 The Sims Court explained that “a defendant in close enough physical proximity to have committed the crime may deny

2006See Grier v. State, 299 S.C. 321 , 384 S.E.2d 722 (1989). ¶ 58.

2006See Grier v. State, 299 S.C. 321 , 384 S.E.2d 722 (1989). ¶ 58.

2013The Mississippi Supreme Court has noted that “notice of a specific date is often essential to the preparation of a defense—especially where an alibi defense is relied on.” Wilson v. State, 515 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Miss.1987).

2008While the supreme court conceded that "[i]n all fairness, notice of a specific date is often essential to the preparation of a defense — especially where an alibi defense is relied on," the court stated that Wilson "raised no credible claim of unfair surprise or prejudice. . . ." Id. at 1183 . ¶ 32.

2024Crucially, where the proof offered at trial “does not support an alibi defense, the instruction should not be granted.” Roper, 981 So. 2d at 1023 (¶12). ¶35.

2019Conversely, if the evidence presented at trial “does not support an alibi defense, the instruction should not be granted.” Roper, 981 So. 2d at 1023 (¶12). ¶18.

2016In Taylor v. State, 109 So.3d 589 (Miss.Ct.App.2013), the defendant alleged that ■ his trial counsel was ineffective fol failing to request an alibi instruction.

2016If the record does not show ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, the alleged ineffectiveness claim must be brought in postconviction proceedings to “give [counsel] a fair opportunity to explain any possible strategy in foregoing to request such an instruction.” McCoy, 147 So.3d at 347 (¶ 36); see also Taylor, 109 So.3d at 596 (¶¶ 26-27) (finding counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction, although alibi was one of defendant’s theories of defense at trial, was trial strategy, for which counsel was not held ineffective on direct appeal). ¶28.

2010See Bell v. State, 360 So.2d 1206, 1212 (Miss.1978).

2006See Bell v. State, 360 So. 2d 1206, 1212 (Miss. 1978).

2010See Killen v. State, 958 So.2d 172, 190 (Miss.2007); De La Beckwith, 707 So.2d at 570 (“Vague assertions of lost witnesses” are insufficient). 8 ¶ 41.

2006See Killen v. State, 958 So. 2d 172, 190 (Miss. 2007); De la Beckwith, 707 So. 2d at 570 (“Vague assertions of lost witnesses” are insufficient).8 ¶41.

2010See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (identifying four factors: “Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant”). ¶ 23.

2010See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (identifying four factors: “Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant”). ¶ 23.

2010Id. at 841-42 .

2010Id. at 841-42 .

2000Goss v. State, 413 So.2d 1033, 1036 (Miss.1982); see also Morris v. State, 379 So.2d 925, 926 (Miss.1980).

1984This Court held that the jury had the right to disbelieve the alibi defense of the defendant and resolve all conflicts of testimony in favor of the prosecutrix. 413 So.2d at 1036 .

2024Newton, 90 So. 2d at 378 (noting the general rule that, when “the jury in other instructions has been adequately instructed as to the burden of the State to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” this Court would not reverse based on the denial of a proper alibi instruction). ¶36.

1994In Newton v. State, 229 Miss. 267 , 90 So.2d 375 (1956), this Court reversed an armed robbery conviction, where the trial judge had struck part of the defendant's alibi instruction.

2022It is a bedrock rule that “when an accused is being tried for a serious offense, the jury is entitled to hear any testimony that the appellant might have in the way of an alibi or defense.” Terry v. State, 718 So. 2d 1115, 1121 (¶28) (Miss. 1998).

2018Reversing the trial court judgment, this Court held that "when an accused is being tried for a serious offense, the jury is entitled to hear any testimony that the [defendant] may have in the way of an alibi or defense." Id. at 1123 . ¶ 31.

2019In Morris, 777 So. 2d at 29 (¶65), the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s alibi instruction.

2019In so doing, the supreme court explained that “the only witness who could possibly have provided an alibi defense” for the defendant “testified that she never saw [him] at her home on the night of the shooting.” Id.

2018"The adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played." Williams v. Florida , 399 U.S. 78 , 82, 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (approving of a Florida rule substantially similar to Rule 9.05 ).

2018"The adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played." Williams v. Florida , 399 U.S. 78 , 82, 90 S.Ct. 1893 , 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970) (approving of a Florida rule substantially similar to Rule 9.05 ).

2010“Rather, an alibi defense simply raises an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury.” Hughes v. State, 724 So.2d 893, 896 (¶ 18) (Miss.1998). ¶ 16.

2001"Rather, an alibi defense simply raises an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury." Hughes v. State, 724 So.2d 893 (¶ 18) (Miss. 1998).