alibi defense in Florida

2016Anthony v. State, 660 So.2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“The determination that defense counsel’s actions in not raising an alibi defense or calling alibi witnesses were tactical decisions is best made after an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”) (citations omitted); Wiggins v. State, 790 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McMillian v. State, 717 So.2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

2015Anthony v. State, 660 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“The determination that defense counsel’s actions in not raising an alibi defense or calling alibi witnesses were tactical decisions is best made after an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”) (citations omitted); Wiggins v. State, 790 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McMillian v. State, 717 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

2016Anthony v. State, 660 So.2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“The determination that defense counsel’s actions in not raising an alibi defense or calling alibi witnesses were tactical decisions is best made after an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”) (citations omitted); Wiggins v. State, 790 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McMillian v. State, 717 So.2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

2015Anthony v. State, 660 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“The determination that defense counsel’s actions in not raising an alibi defense or calling alibi witnesses were tactical decisions is best made after an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”) (citations omitted); Wiggins v. State, 790 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McMillian v. State, 717 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

2009Cf. Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807, 815 (Fla.2006) (holding that the failure to investigate an alibi did not constitute ineffective assistance because "even if the jury believed that Lott did speak with Jones on the Sunday afternoon in question, it still would have left plenty of room in the twenty-seven hour timeline for Lott to have committed the murder"); Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 429-30 (Fla. 2004) (holding that there was no deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi claim because "the available testimony provided, at best, an incomplete alibi," where the t

2009Cf. Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807, 815 (Fla.2006) (holding that the failure to investigate an alibi did not constitute ineffective assistance because “even if the jury believed that Lott did speak with Jones on the Sunday afternoon in question, it still would have left plenty of room in the twenty-seven hour timeline for Lott to have committed the murder”); Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 429-30 (Fla.2004) (holding that there was no deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi claim because “the available testimony provided, at best, an incomplete alibi,” where the te

2016Anthony v. State, 660 So.2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“The determination that defense counsel’s actions in not raising an alibi defense or calling alibi witnesses were tactical decisions is best made after an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”) (citations omitted); Wiggins v. State, 790 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McMillian v. State, 717 So.2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

2015Anthony v. State, 660 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“The determination that defense counsel’s actions in not raising an alibi defense or calling alibi witnesses were tactical decisions is best made after an evidentiary hearing unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.”) (citations omitted); Wiggins v. State, 790 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McMillian v. State, 717 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

2025See Farrington v. State, 821 So. 2d 470, 471-72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding mistrial was warranted where defendant filed notice of alibi regarding charged offense date, state discovered charged date was incorrect but failed to inform defendant, and at trial, state elicited testimony from its witness regarding correct offense date); Davis v. State, 740 So. 2d 86, 87-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that where state filed an amended information immediately after jury selection to change date of offense, the trial court erred in not granting defense request for more time to investigate an alibi d

2023The correct date of the offense was February 7, 2021. 1 Cf. Davis v. State, 740 So. 2d 86, 87-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (reversing for a new trial and explaining that the amended information changed the date of the offense which was significant in that case because the defendant denied committing the offense and stated an intention to present an alibi defense). 4 In denying the State's request to amend the information and in granting Sanders' oral motion to dismiss, the trial court focused on the facts that (1) the police report listed the same incorrect date of the alleged offense and (2) Sander

2015See Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000) (“[Strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.”).

2010See Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048 (“[Strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.”).

2009Cf. Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807, 815 (Fla.2006) (holding that the failure to investigate an alibi did not constitute ineffective assistance because "even if the jury believed that Lott did speak with Jones on the Sunday afternoon in question, it still would have left plenty of room in the twenty-seven hour timeline for Lott to have committed the murder"); Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 429-30 (Fla. 2004) (holding that there was no deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi claim because "the available testimony provided, at best, an incomplete alibi," where the t

2009Cf. Lott v. State, 931 So.2d 807, 815 (Fla.2006) (holding that the failure to investigate an alibi did not constitute ineffective assistance because “even if the jury believed that Lott did speak with Jones on the Sunday afternoon in question, it still would have left plenty of room in the twenty-seven hour timeline for Lott to have committed the murder”); Reed v. State, 875 So.2d 415, 429-30 (Fla.2004) (holding that there was no deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi claim because “the available testimony provided, at best, an incomplete alibi,” where the te

2006Cf. Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So.2d 1321, 1325 (Fla.1994) (concluding that although counsel's failure to thoroughly investigate an alibi defense may have been deficient performance under the facts of the case, defendant failed to establish prejudice where four witnesses testified contrary to the alibi testimony offered at the evidentiary hearing and three other witnesses placed the defendant at the scene of the crime). 6.

2001See Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So.2d 1321, 1324 (Fla.1994) (finding that although failure to investigate the defendant's alibi defense may have constituted deficient performance, the defendant was not prejudiced thereby because there was substantial evidence introduced at trial contradicting the alibi testimony offered by the defendant at his evidentiary hearing).

1982Evidence of prior illicit sex acts with the same children involved in the assault and rape prosecution was held properly admitted "to show a patter of criminality" in Gossett v. State, 191 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla.2d DCA 1966)[.] ...

1980Evidence of prior illicit sex acts with the same children involved in the assault and rape prosecution was held properly admitted "to show a pattern of criminality" in Gossett v. State, 191 So.2d 281, 283 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1966), the court holding ( 191 So.2d at 283 ): *1148 "We conclude that the trial judge had authority under Williams v. State, . . and Talley v. State, [8] to permit the evidence of former acts of the two defendants in connection with the children involved in the instant case to show a pattern of criminality that makes the prior act relevant to the commission of the acts in quest

1982In affirming the conviction, the court said: The evidence here was relevant to the alibi defense and in addition to establish "a pattern of criminality," a category of admissibility recognized by the Florida Supreme Court in The Williams Case and in Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685, 693 (Fla. 1972).

1980The evidence here was relevant to the alibi defense and in addition to establish "a pattern of criminality," a category of admissibility recognized by the Florida Supreme Court in The Williams Case [7] and in Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685, 693 (Fla. 1972).

2018See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))).

2016However, because the record does not conclusively refute Marshall’s claims that counsel was (I)- ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of hearsay by Detective Newton and (2) ineffective for failing to investigate and present an alibi defense, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds A and G and remand for the postconviction court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. 1 See Freeman v. *1084 State, 761 So.2d 1065, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unl

2000Cf. Brown v. State, 524 So.2d 730, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (where the issue of an alibi defense was raised by the State, the State's reference to the defendant's failure to call alibi witnesses was prejudicial error).

1997Similarly, in Brown v. State, 524 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), the prosecutor improperly attempted to create an alibi defense for the defendant and then commented on the defendant's failure to call alibi witnesses.

2015The State responded that Truett had “waived the claim he now asserts on appeal by acceding to the trial judge’s explanation of the alibi defense, and the court’s ruling that Truett had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to justify administering the alibi instruction.” Id. at 659 , In other words, the State based its lack of preservation argument in Truett — at least in part — on counsel’s neutral statement of “Okay,” made in response to the trial court’s explanation of its reasons for refusing to give the alibi instruction.

2015Garzon v. State, 980 So.2d 1038, 1042 (Fla.2008); see also Truett v. State, 105 So.3d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that the trial court’s refusal to give an alibi instruction is subject to the contemporaneous objection requirement).

2003Ford claims further that by failing to read the alibi instruction in its entirety, the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense and, in addition, failed to inform the jury of the law necessary in order for the jury to determine the issue of alibi. “[A] trial court must instruct the jury on the law applica ble to alibi if there is evidence to support such an instruction.” Rostano v. State, 678 So.2d 1371, 1373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); See also Ramsaran v. State, 664 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

2003“Whenever the trial court improperly denies an alibi instruction, there is a strong presumption of prejudice to the defendant.” Rostano, 678 So.2d at 1373 , citing Henderson v. United States, 619 A.2d 16 (D.C.1992).

2013The reviewing court noted that a trial court is obligated to give the alibi instruction “if there is evidence to support such instruction.” Id.

2003Ford claims further that by failing to read the alibi instruction in its entirety, the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defense and, in addition, failed to inform the jury of the law necessary in order for the jury to determine the issue of alibi. “[A] trial court must instruct the jury on the law applica ble to alibi if there is evidence to support such an instruction.” Rostano v. State, 678 So.2d 1371, 1373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); See also Ramsaran v. State, 664 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

2003The Rostano opinion cites with approval Gray v. United States, 549 A.2d 347 (D.C.1988), in which a defendant’s conviction was reversed when the trial court improperly denied his request for an alibi instruction.

1996In the case of Gray v. United States, 549 A.2d 347 (D.C. 1988), the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's conviction for distributing illegal drugs where the trial court had improperly denied his request for an alibi instruction.

1987See Cotitia [Cotita] v. State, 381 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and Dodson v. State, 344 334 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

1981In Cotita , the majority approved the admission of the similar fact evidence on the grounds that it "was relevant to the alibi defense and in addition to establish `a pattern of criminality', a category of admissibility recognized by the Florida Supreme Court in The Williams Case... ." Cotita v. State, 381 So.2d at 1147 .

2025See Farrington v. State, 821 So. 2d 470, 471-72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding mistrial was warranted where defendant filed notice of alibi regarding charged offense date, state discovered charged date was incorrect but failed to inform defendant, and at trial, state elicited testimony from its witness regarding correct offense date); Davis v. State, 740 So. 2d 86, 87-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that where state filed an amended information immediately after jury selection to change date of offense, the trial court erred in not granting defense request for more time to investigate an alibi d

2022In order to waive the right to testify, “a defendant must make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver.” Morris v. State, 931 So. 2d 821, 833 (Fla. 2006) (citation omitted). “[M]isadvice concerning the decision of a criminal 6 defendant whether or not to testify in his own defense [raises] a potentially colorable basis for finding ineffective assistance of counsel.” Loudermilk v. State, 106 So. 3d 959, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citation omitted).

2022In order to waive the right to testify, “a defendant must make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver.” Morris v. State, 931 So. 2d 821, 833 (Fla. 2006) (citation omitted). “[M]isadvice concerning the decision of a criminal 6 defendant whether or not to testify in his own defense [raises] a potentially colorable basis for finding ineffective assistance of counsel.” Loudermilk v. State, 106 So. 3d 959, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citation omitted).

2019P. 3.200 (stating a court cannot exclude a defendant’s own alibi testimony for failure to file and serve proper notice of an alibi defense). 3 Prejudice Prejudice requires “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”—“a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Hunter v. State, 817 So. 2d 786, 794 (Fla. 2002).

2018See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))).

2015Compare Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 , 1078 n. 2 (Fla.2000) (stating that defense counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on alibi did not present ineffectiveness “apparent on the face of the record,” notwithstanding several witnesses’ testimony that supported the alibi defense), and Jackson v. State, 120 So.3d 147 , 147 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DGA 2013) (indicating that a claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction would be more,properly raised in a post-conviction motion), with Jackson v. State, 970 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding tha

2015Compare Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 , 1078 n. 2 (Fla.2000) (stating that defense counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on alibi did not present ineffectiveness “apparent on the face of the record,” notwithstanding several witnesses’ testimony that supported the alibi defense), and Jackson v. State, 120 So.3d 147 , 147 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DGA 2013) (indicating that a claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction would be more,properly raised in a post-conviction motion), with Jackson v. State, 970 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding tha

2015Compare Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 , 1078 n. 2 (Fla.2000) (stating that defense counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on alibi did not present ineffectiveness “apparent on the face of the record,” notwithstanding several witnesses’ testimony that supported the alibi defense), and Jackson v. State, 120 So.3d 147 , 147 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DGA 2013) (indicating that a claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction would be more,properly raised in a post-conviction motion), with Jackson v. State, 970 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding tha

2015Compare Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 , 1078 n. 2 (Fla.2000) (stating that defense counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction on alibi did not present ineffectiveness “apparent on the face of the record,” notwithstanding several witnesses’ testimony that supported the alibi defense), and Jackson v. State, 120 So.3d 147 , 147 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DGA 2013) (indicating that a claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction would be more,properly raised in a post-conviction motion), with Jackson v. State, 970 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding tha

2015Barnett relies on the decisions in Shedd v. State, 137 So.3d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Capiro v. State, 97 So.3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), to support his argument that counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of record because the alibi defense was Barnett’s primary defense.

2015Barnett relies on the decisions in Shedd v. State, 137 So.3d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Capiro v. State, 97 So.3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), to support his argument that counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of record because the alibi defense was Barnett’s primary defense.

2015Barnett relies on the decisions in Shedd v. State, 137 So.3d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Capiro v. State, 97 So.3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), to support his argument that counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of record because the alibi defense was Barnett’s primary defense.

2015Barnett relies on the decisions in Shedd v. State, 137 So.3d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Capiro v. State, 97 So.3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), to support his argument that counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of record because the alibi defense was Barnett’s primary defense.