alibi defense in New York

2025In any event, even accepting defendant's contention that an alibi or partial alibi charge should have been provided, we would find no basis for reversal because the charge as a whole conveyed the same principles as those underlying an alibi instruction ( see People v Warren , 76 NY2d 773, 775-776 [1990]; People v Edwards , 3 AD3d 504, 504-505 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]; People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79 , 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [2003]).

2025In any event, even accepting defendant's contention that an alibi or partial alibi charge should have been provided, we would find no basis for reversal because the charge as a whole conveyed the same principles as those underlying an alibi instruction ( see People v Warren , 76 NY2d 773, 775-776 [1990]; People v Edwards , 3 AD3d 504, 504-505 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]; People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79, 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [2003]).

2013Moreover, the defendant has failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcomings (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

2008Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters outside the record, particularly regarding counsel’s strategic decisions and the asserted availability of an alibi defense (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]).

2025In any event, even accepting defendant's contention that an alibi or partial alibi charge should have been provided, we would find no basis for reversal because the charge as a whole conveyed the same principles as those underlying an alibi instruction ( see People v Warren , 76 NY2d 773, 775-776 [1990]; People v Edwards , 3 AD3d 504, 504-505 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]; People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79 , 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [2003]).

2025In any event, even accepting defendant's contention that an alibi or partial alibi charge should have been provided, we would find no basis for reversal because the charge as a whole conveyed the same principles as those underlying an alibi instruction ( see People v Warren , 76 NY2d 773, 775-776 [1990]; People v Edwards , 3 AD3d 504, 504-505 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]; People v Pinkney , 300 AD2d 79, 79 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [2003]).

2025However, the veracity of the alibi testimony implicated a credibility determination for the jury to resolve, taking into account "the entire record, . . . [as well as] the demeanor, interest and motives of the [alibi] witnesses" ( People v Regina , 19 NY2d 65, 72 [1966]; see People v Sindoni , 178 AD3d 1128 , 1130-1131 [3d Dept 2019]; People v Brewington , 149 AD2d 852, 853 [3d Dept 1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 737 [1989]). "[W]hen viewing the evidence in a neutral light and weighing the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may

1995Although defendant presented an alibi defense, the conflicting testimony merely raised issues of credibility, which are best determined by the trier of fact, which has the advantage of observing the witnesses and, necessarily, is in a superior position to judge their veracity (see, People v Bleakley, supra, at 495; People v Christian, 139 AD2d 896 , lv denied 71 NY2d 1024 ).

2014We further disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant met his burden of establishing the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s decision to present an alibi defense through the testimony of defendant’s girlfriend and mother (see generally Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712 ).

2014We further disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant met his burden of establishing the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s decision to present an alibi defense through the testimony of defendant’s girlfriend and mother (see generally Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712 ).

2010“The record in this case demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, presented an alibi defense, and made competent opening and closing statements which were consistent with that defense” (People v Pollard, 220 AD2d 463, 464 [1995]; see People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 823-824 [1997]; People v Velez, 197 AD2d 651, 652 [1993]; People v Ortiz, 174 AD2d 763 [1991]).

2009“The record in this case demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, presented an alibi defense, and made competent opening and closing statements which were consistent with that defense” (People v Pollard, 220 AD2d 463, 464 [1995]; see People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 823-824 [1997]; People v Velez, 197 AD2d 651, 652 [1993]; People v Ortiz, 174 AD2d 763, 763 [1991]).

2023The People moved to amend the indictment to reflect the time frame "between March 2015 and the end of the school year 2015." As the amendment did not alter the theory of prosecution, only slightly expanded the time frame, and defendant did not present an alibi defense, there was no prejudice to defendant, who had sufficient time to prepare for the second trial after the indictment was amended ( see People v Davis , 21 AD3d 590, 592 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Grimes , 301 AD2d 953, 954-955 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 654 [2003]; People v Leon , 115 AD2d 907, 908 [3d Dept 1985]).

2023The People moved to amend the indictment to reflect the time frame "between March 2015 and the end of the school year 2015." As the amendment did not alter the theory of prosecution, only slightly expanded the time frame, and defendant did not present an alibi defense, there was no prejudice to defendant, who had sufficient time to prepare for the second trial after the indictment was amended ( see People v Davis , 21 AD3d 590, 592 [3d Dept 2005]; People v Grimes , 301 AD2d 953, 954-955 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 654 [2003]; People v Leon , 115 AD2d 907, 908 [3d Dept 1985]).

2024Here, defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a legitimate explanation for his trial counsel's failure to pursue an alibi defense ( see People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Conway , 148 AD3d 1739, 1744 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1077 [2017]).

2024Here, defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a legitimate explanation for his trial counsel's failure to pursue an alibi defense ( see People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Conway , 148 AD3d 1739, 1744 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1077 [2017]).

2014The defendant correctly contends that the evidence was legally sufficient to support an alibi defense and, thus, the Supreme Court improperly denied his application for an alibi charge (see People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773, 775 [1990]; People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708, 709 [1989]; People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 820 [1986]).

2014The defendant correctly contends that the evidence was legally sufficient to support an alibi defense and, thus, the Supreme Court improperly denied his application for an alibi charge (see People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773, 775 [1990]; People v Jack, 74 NY2d 708, 709 [1989]; People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 820 [1986]).

2025A charge on the defense of justification remains appropriate where a defendant pursued other defense strategies at trial, including that he or she did not intend to cause the victim's death ( see People v Huntley , 87 AD2d 488, 494 [4th Dept 1982], affd 59 NY2d 868 [1983]),was not present or was not the assailant ( see People v Steele , 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970] [recognizing that the jury could disbelieve the alibi defense but still find, on the prosecution's evidence, that a defendant acted justifiably]).The failure to provide a justification charge under such circumstances constitutes reversib

2019Although the court erred when it initially concluded that the justification charge was not available to defendant because he was also asserting an alibi defense ( see People v Steele , 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970]; see generally People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 144-145 [1983]), the court later recognized that error and denied the instruction on the ground that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant had a reasonable belief that deadly physical force was about to be used against him.

2006A claim of this variety is not amenable to resolution upon direct appeal since it requires us to speculate as to “ ‘the anticipated testimony of defendant’s desired witnesses and their likely effectiveness in supporting an alibi defense’ ” (People v Wright, 1 AD3d 707 , 708 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 636 [2004], quoting People v McDonald, 255 AD2d 688, 688 [1998]; see also People v Watson, 269 AD2d 755, 756 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 806 [2000]; compare CPL 440.10 [2] [b]).

2003However, a claim of this type cannot properly be addressed on direct appeal because it requires speculation as to facts outside the record, namely, “the anticipated testimony of defendant’s desired witnesses and their likely effectiveness in supporting an alibi defense” (People v McDonald, 255 AD2d 688, 688 [1998]; see People v Watson, 269 AD2d 755, 756 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 806 [2000]).

2019The court's alibi charge sufficiently conveyed the principle that the People have the burden of disproving an alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Victor , 62 NY2d 374 [1984]).

2018As an ordinary defense, alibi must be disproved by the People beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Victor , 62 NY2d 374, 378 [1984]), and where, as here, a defendant "takes the stand in his own defense and testifies that he was elsewhere at the time the [*3] crime was committed, the testimony is legally sufficient to raise an alibi defense, and the defendant is entitled to an alibi charge upon his request" ( People v Brown , 30 AD3d 609 , 610 [2006], citing People v Warren , 76 NY2d 773, 775 [1990]).

2016The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred by instructing the jury as to an alibi defense is waived because the court granted the defendant’s request to provide this charge to the jury (see People v Ford, 62 NY2d 275, 283 [1984]; People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]).

2011Defense counsel neither objected to the court’s proposed charge nor voiced an objection to the charge after it was given to the jury, thereby failing to alert the trial court to his current claim that the amended charge did not adequately instruct the jury that the People bear the burden of disproving a defendant’s alibi defense (see People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279-280 [1983]).

2024The reason was that binding a defendant to an alibi defense presented during the discovery process might inhibit him from abandoning a factually inaccurate defense posture and the choice of an accused to testify on his own behalf; there also are Fifth Amendment and due process considerations. ( See id. at 233-235 .) In the civil litigation context, this Court takes notice of several Appellate Division decisions: The trial court did not err in precluding plaintiffs from reading into evidence or using as a prior inconsistent statement, the response prepared on Dr. Jacobson's behalf to their requ

2024The reason was that binding a defendant to an alibi defense presented during the discovery process might inhibit him from abandoning a factually inaccurate defense posture and the choice of an accused to testify on his own behalf; there also are Fifth Amendment and due process considerations. ( See id. at 233-235 .) In the civil litigation context, this Court takes notice of several Appellate Division decisions: The trial court did not err in precluding plaintiffs from reading into evidence or using as a prior inconsistent statement, the response prepared on Dr. Jacobson's behalf to their requ

2015“It cannot be said that this case involved a ‘close question of identity’ ” (People v Perez, 77 NY2d 928, 929 [1991]), and defendant did not present an alibi defense (see People v Singleton, 286 AD2d 877, 877 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 658 [2001]).

2015“It cannot be said that this case involved a ‘close question of identity’ ” (People v Perez, 77 NY2d 928, 929 [1991]), and defendant did not present an alibi defense (see People v Singleton, 286 AD2d 877, 877 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 658 [2001]).

1989Similarly, defendant’s request, for the first time after defense counsel’s summation, for an alibi instruction based solely upon a discrepancy in time estimates by two of his pursuers was properly denied, since there was no evidence establishing defendant’s presence other than at the scene of the crime (People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819 ; People v O’Neill, 79 AD2d 429, 431 ).

1983The court’s general instruction that the People have to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not dispel the confusion created by the alibi instruction (see People v Daniels, 88 AD2d 392, 403 ; People v O’Neill, supra, p 433; People v Jones, 74 AD2d 515 ).

2012Under the totality of the circumstances presented, we find the span of time during which the crime was alleged to have occurred is not so unreasonable that defendant was “prevented from preparing a defense, notwithstanding that it would be easier to prepare an alibi defense if the exact date and time of the offense were known and provided”; thus, County Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment (People v Morris, 61 NY2d at 297 ; see People v White, 283 AD2d 964, 964 [2001]; see also People v Windley, 228 AD2d 875, 876 [1996], lvs denied 88 NY2d 991 , 997 [1996])

1993Indeed, where such notice is provided, a defendant is not given unconstitutionally inadequate notice "notwithstanding that it would be easier to prepare an alibi defense if the exact date and time of the offense[s] were known and provided” (People v Morris, supra, at 297 ).

2010“The record in this case demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, presented an alibi defense, and made competent opening and closing statements which were consistent with that defense” (People v Pollard, 220 AD2d 463, 464 [1995]; see People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 823-824 [1997]; People v Velez, 197 AD2d 651, 652 [1993]; People v Ortiz, 174 AD2d 763 [1991]).

2009“The record in this case demonstrates that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, presented an alibi defense, and made competent opening and closing statements which were consistent with that defense” (People v Pollard, 220 AD2d 463, 464 [1995]; see People v Ryan, 90 NY2d 822, 823-824 [1997]; People v Velez, 197 AD2d 651, 652 [1993]; People v Ortiz, 174 AD2d 763, 763 [1991]).