alibi defense in Washington

2025Therefore, amendment of the date is a matter of form rather than substance, and should be allowed absent an alibi defense or a showing of other substantial prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 99 (quoting State v. DeBolt, 61 Wn.

2025Therefore, amendment of the date is a matter of form rather than substance, and should be allowed absent an alibi defense or a showing of other substantial prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 99 (quoting State v. DeBolt, 61 Wn.

2023There, the defendant argued that by withholding an instruction on assault in the second degree the trial court prevented a presentation to the jury of an alternative theory of the case, while the prosecution countered that the instruction was unwarranted due to the presentation of an alibi defense. 141 Wn.2d 448, 457 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000).

2021Id.

2025Therefore, amendment of the date is a matter of form rather than substance, and should be allowed absent an alibi defense or a showing of other substantial prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 99 (quoting State v. DeBolt, 61 Wn.

2025Therefore, amendment of the date is a matter of form rather than substance, and should be allowed absent an alibi defense or a showing of other substantial prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 99 (quoting State v. DeBolt, 61 Wn.

2023There, the defendant argued that by withholding an instruction on assault in the second degree the trial court prevented a presentation to the jury of an alternative theory of the case, while the prosecution countered that the instruction was unwarranted due to the presentation of an alibi defense. 141 Wn.2d 448, 457 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000).

2009He also "presented testimony of an expert witness who indicated that various noises can emanate from the type of handgun allegedly used... even when the trigger is not pulled." Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d at 451 , 6 P.3d 1150 .

2021Id. at 212-13 .

2020Id. at 210 .

2020"An alibi defense denies that the defendant committed the crime." State v. Riker, 123 Wn.2d 351, 367 , 869 P.2d 43 (1994); State V.

2020"An alibi defense denies that the defendant committed the crime." State v. Riker, 123 Wn.2d 351, 367 , 869 P.2d 43 (1994); State V.

2020Johnson, 19 Wn.

1994State v. Johnson, 19 Wn.

2011Larry, 108 Wn.

2011Larry, 108 Wash.App. at 911-12 , 34 P.3d 241 .

2011Johnson, 147 Wash.App. at 284 , 194 P.3d 1009 .

2011Johnson, 147 Wash. App. at 287 , 194 P.3d 1009 .

2002State v. Gifford, 19 Wash. 464, 467 , 53 P. 709 (1898) (reversing rape conviction based on theory of accessory before the fact as procurer, where defendant prepared an alibi defense to the act of rape).

2002State v. Gifford, 19 Wash. 464, 467 , 53 P. 709 (1898) (reversing rape conviction based on theory of accessory before the fact as procurer, where defendant prepared an alibi defense to the act of rape).

1995And subdivision (d)(v) relates to coconspirators, of which there are none here. [17] In Acosta, this representation was made by stating the defendant would present an alibi defense. 34 Wash.App. at 391 , 661 P.2d 602 . [18] We also note that in Dault and Acosta, each client was present to hear his attorney's statement, and the courts seem to have relied in part on a theory of adoptive admission.

1995In Acosta, this representation was made by stating the defendant would present an alibi defense. 34 Wn.

1973We think the distinction expressed in State v. Brown, supra at page 383 between prejudicial and nonprejudicial use of the “on or about” language where an alibi is asserted applies to this case: In State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 , an instruction which used the words “on or about” in connection with the date of the crime, was held not to call for reversal, even though an alibi defense was involved.

1973We think the distinction expressed in State v. Brown, supra at page 383 between prejudicial and nonprejudicial use of the “on or about” language where an alibi is asserted applies to this case: In State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 , an instruction which used the words “on or about” in connection with the date of the crime, was held not to call for reversal, even though an alibi defense was involved.

1972Accordingly, it was the decision of this court in Adams that no alibi instruction be given in the future, though requested by either party. [1] In Adams, we pointed out that an alibi instruction had been sanctioned by the laws of this state since State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902); and that an instruction virtually identical to instruction No. 9 now before us has been used since State v. Rosi, 120 Wash. 514 , 208 P. 15 (1922).

1972Accordingly, it was the decision of this court in Adams that no alibi instruction be given in the future, though requested by either party. [1] In Adams, we pointed out that an alibi instruction had been sanctioned by the laws of this state since State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902); and that an instruction virtually identical to instruction No. 9 now before us has been used since State v. Rosi, 120 Wash. 514 , 208 P. 15 (1922).

1972Again, in State v. Johnson, 122 Wash. 394 , 210 P. 774 (1922), where the defendant asserted that this very alibi instruction placed an undue burden of proof upon the accused, this court, citing State v. Rosi, supra , affirmed the instruction and held it to be without error.

1972Again, in State v. Johnson, 122 Wash. 394 , 210 P. 774 (1922), where the defendant asserted that this very alibi instruction placed an undue burden of proof upon the accused, this court, citing State v. Rosi, supra , affirmed the instruction and held it to be without error.

1972The identical instruction to that given in Rosi and in the instant case on the subject of alibi was explicitly challenged in State v. Pistona, 127 Wash. 171 , 219 P. 859 (1923), and set forth in that opinion.

1972The identical instruction to that given in Rosi and in the instant case on the subject of alibi was explicitly challenged in State v. Pistona, 127 Wash. 171 , 219 P. 859 (1923), and set forth in that opinion.

1972A reading of State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902), setting forth such an alibi instruction with approval, makes this proposition clear.

1972A reading of State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902), setting forth such an alibi instruction with approval, makes this proposition clear.

2021Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by making this ruling, Gonzalez Martinez’s assignment of error fails. “[W]e will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on a motion in limine . . . absent an abuse of the court’s discretion.” State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244, 258 , 893 P.2d 615 (1995).

2021Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by making this ruling, Gonzalez Martinez’s assignment of error fails. “[W]e will not disturb a trial court’s rulings on a motion in limine . . . absent an abuse of the court’s discretion.” State v. Powell, 126 Wn.2d 244, 258 , 893 P.2d 615 (1995).

2020If “a charging document is challenged for the first time on appeal, we construe it liberally.” State v. Pry, 194 Wn.2d 745 , 752, 452 P.3d 536 (2019). “[A]mendment of the date is a matter of form rather than substance, and should be allowed absent an alibi defense or a showing of other substantial prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Debolt, 61 Wn.

2019Conklin sought to testify that if he had passed the check in question, he was “so intoxicated by the use of drugs and lack of sleep that he was unable to form the specific intent to commit forgery.” 79 Wn.2d at 807 .

2019The court stated: As such, the defense of consent should be treated similar to the alibi defense at issue in [State v.] Riker[, 123 Wn.2d 351 , 869 P.2d 43 (1994)] in that the defendant need only produce sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt as to the victim’s consent. . . . [T]he burden must remain on the State to prove forcible compulsion beyond a reasonable doubt. 181 Wn.2d at 766-67 .

2019Amendment of the charging period is usually not a material element of a crime and thus, an “‘amendment of the date is a matter of form rather than substance, and should be allowed absent an alibi defense or a showing of other substantial prejudice to the defendant.’” State v. Goss, 189 Wn.

2019App. 571, 576 , 358 P.3d 436 (2015) (quoting DeBolt, 61 Wn.

2016See, e.g., State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 474 , 151 P. 832 (1915) (holding that an erroneous instruction "withdrew from the jury the appellant'schief defense"): State v. Brown, 35Wn.2d 379, 381-83, 213 P.2d 305 (1949) (reversing conviction in case where "on or about" instruction, combined with State's comments on that instruction, "in effect destroyed appellant's defense of an alibi"); State v. Danlev, 9 Wn.

2016See, e.g., State v. Morden, 87 Wash. 465, 474 , 151 P. 832 (1915) (holding that an erroneous instruction "withdrew from the jury the appellant'schief defense"): State v. Brown, 35Wn.2d 379, 381-83, 213 P.2d 305 (1949) (reversing conviction in case where "on or about" instruction, combined with State's comments on that instruction, "in effect destroyed appellant's defense of an alibi"); State v. Danlev, 9 Wn.

2015But in child 31 ER 611(a). 32 State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1, 17 , 653 P.2d 1024 (1982); State v. Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013). 33 State v. Nonog, 169 Wn.2d 220, 226 , 237 P.3d 250 (2010). 34 Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d at 158-59 (quoting State v. Kiorsvik. 117 Wn.2d 93, 101 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)). -14- NO. 72210-7-1/15 sex abuse cases, "whether single or multiple incidents of sexual contact are charged, a defendant has no due process right to a reasonable opportunity to raise an alibi defense."35 Alibi is not likely to be a valid defense where, as here, "'the accused child molester

2015But in child 31 ER 611(a). 32 State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1, 17 , 653 P.2d 1024 (1982); State v. Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013). 33 State v. Nonog, 169 Wn.2d 220, 226 , 237 P.3d 250 (2010). 34 Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d at 158-59 (quoting State v. Kiorsvik. 117 Wn.2d 93, 101 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)). -14- NO. 72210-7-1/15 sex abuse cases, "whether single or multiple incidents of sexual contact are charged, a defendant has no due process right to a reasonable opportunity to raise an alibi defense."35 Alibi is not likely to be a valid defense where, as here, "'the accused child molester

2015But in child 31 ER 611(a). 32 State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1, 17 , 653 P.2d 1024 (1982); State v. Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013). 33 State v. Nonog, 169 Wn.2d 220, 226 , 237 P.3d 250 (2010). 34 Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d at 158-59 (quoting State v. Kiorsvik. 117 Wn.2d 93, 101 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)). -14- NO. 72210-7-1/15 sex abuse cases, "whether single or multiple incidents of sexual contact are charged, a defendant has no due process right to a reasonable opportunity to raise an alibi defense."35 Alibi is not likely to be a valid defense where, as here, "'the accused child molester

2015But in child 31 ER 611(a). 32 State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1, 17 , 653 P.2d 1024 (1982); State v. Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013). 33 State v. Nonog, 169 Wn.2d 220, 226 , 237 P.3d 250 (2010). 34 Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d at 158-59 (quoting State v. Kiorsvik. 117 Wn.2d 93, 101 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)). -14- NO. 72210-7-1/15 sex abuse cases, "whether single or multiple incidents of sexual contact are charged, a defendant has no due process right to a reasonable opportunity to raise an alibi defense."35 Alibi is not likely to be a valid defense where, as here, "'the accused child molester

2015But in child 31 ER 611(a). 32 State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1, 17 , 653 P.2d 1024 (1982); State v. Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 307 P.3d 712 (2013). 33 State v. Nonog, 169 Wn.2d 220, 226 , 237 P.3d 250 (2010). 34 Zillvette, 178 Wn.2d at 158-59 (quoting State v. Kiorsvik. 117 Wn.2d 93, 101 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)). -14- NO. 72210-7-1/15 sex abuse cases, "whether single or multiple incidents of sexual contact are charged, a defendant has no due process right to a reasonable opportunity to raise an alibi defense."35 Alibi is not likely to be a valid defense where, as here, "'the accused child molester

2015But "a defendant has no due process right to a reasonable opportunity to raise an alibi defense" against a charge of child sex abuse.51 And as the State points out, the period over which 46 Noltie, 116Wn.2dat845. 47 Noltie, 57 Wn.

2015But "a defendant has no due process right to a reasonable opportunity to raise an alibi defense" against a charge of child sex abuse.51 And as the State points out, the period over which 46 Noltie, 116Wn.2dat845. 47 Noltie, 57 Wn.

2015In Russell, the defendant denied committing all the charged crimes and argued on appeal that the trial court should have severed the counts. 125 Wn.2d at 64-65 .