alibi defense in Kansas

47 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2025 7 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Huttongreen kan · 1983 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1984–1993 2 sentences 1993As clearly pointed out in State v. Marks, there .must be positive testimony presented for the express purpose of proving a version -of how the homicide occurred which is contrary to the version'presented by the State befdre instructions on lesser included offenses are required.’1’ 232' Kan. at 554-551 353 In State v. Hutton, 232 Kan. 545, 554, 657 .P.2d 567 (1983), this, court quoted the above and then noted “no evidence, was presented to refute the State’s theory of premeditated or felony murder.” The Hutton court continued: 354 The Mayberry and Garcia opinions used loóse language construin 1988See State v. Hutton, 232 Kan. 545 .	3	3
State v. Clarkgreen kan · 1977 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1983–2012 2 sentences 2012Applying this rationale, Clark held that “Doyle prohibits a state prosecutor from impeaching a defendant’s alibi defense told for the first time at trial, when the defendant carried on limited discussion with police after arrest, but remained silent as to matters subsequently asserted at his trial.” Clark, 223 Kan. at 89 . 2008Applying this rationale, Clark held that “Doyle prohibits a state prosecutor from impeaching a defendant’s alibi defense told for the first time at trial, when the defendant carried on limited discussion with police after arrest, but remained silent as to matters subsequently asserted at his trial.” 223 Kan. at 89 .	1	4
State v. Reynoldsgreen kan · 1982 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1983–2005 2 sentences 2005The cases cited by the State, State v. Lewis, 256 Kan. 929 , 889 P.2d 766 (1991), and State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532 , 639 P.2d 461 (1982), stand for the proposition that a defendant’s use of an alibi defense narrows the issue at trial to identity. 2005The cases cited by the State, State v. Lewis, 256 Kan. 929 , 889 P.2d 766 (1991), and State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532 , 639 P.2d 461 (1982), stand for the proposition that a defendant’s use of an alibi defense narrows the issue at trial to identity.	1	3
State v. McIvergreen kan · 1995 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2004 2 sentences 2004Dicta in other Kansas cases provides a broader definition for alibi taken from PIK Crim. 52.19, which noted that an instruction is not necessary for the alibi defense because it “is not an affir 724 mative defense, as is entrapment or insanity; it consists only of evidence showing drat the defendant was not present at the time or place of the crime.” State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983) (concluding that courts need not instruct on alibi as an affirmative defense); see also State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995) (considering whether to give an instruction 2001*In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972).	1	2
State v. McIvergreen kan · 1995 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2004 2 sentences 2004Dicta in other Kansas cases provides a broader definition for alibi taken from PIK Crim. 52.19, which noted that an instruction is not necessary for the alibi defense because it “is not an affir 724 mative defense, as is entrapment or insanity; it consists only of evidence showing drat the defendant was not present at the time or place of the crime.” State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983) (concluding that courts need not instruct on alibi as an affirmative defense); see also State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995) (considering whether to give an instruction 2001*In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972).	1	2
State v. Holmangreen kan · 2012 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See Holman, 295 Kan. at 146-47 ; State v. Dickerson, No. 116,628, 2018 WL 5851444 , at *3-4 (Kan.	1	1
State v. Sanfordgreen kanctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See Sanford , 24 Kan.	1	1
Simms v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014There, as here, the defendant did not present an alibi defense at trial but the trial court permitted the State to introduce the defendant’s pretrial alibi notice at trial. 194 Md.	1	1
People v. Perrygreen calctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See People v. Perry, 166 Cal. App. 3d 924, 929 , 212 Cal. Rptr. 793 (1985) (uncharged joint robbery evidence probative of identity when one or two defendants not identified by witnesses). 2012See People v. Perry, 166 Cal. App. 3d 924, 929 , 212 Cal. Rptr. 793 (1985) (uncharged joint robbery evidence probative of identity when one or two defendants not identified by witnesses).	1	1
State v. Gibsongreen kanctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005Claiborne, 262 Kan. at 424 ; see also State v. Gibson, 30 Kan.	1	1
People v. Fritzgreen ill · 1981 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See, e.g., People v. Fritz, 84 Ill. 2d 72, 76-78 , 417 N.E.2d 612 (1981) (concluding that “there is a difference between attempting to prove that a defendant was in some definite place other than where the crime occurred, and attempting to prove that the defendant was not at the scene of the offense at the time it allegedly occurred”); State v. Anderson, 18 S.W.3d 11, 16 (Mo. App. 2000) (distinguishing the defenses of alibi and denial by noting that testimony showing the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, without specification of the defendant’s precise location, is not an al 2004See, e.g., People v. Fritz, 84 Ill. 2d 72, 76-78 , 417 N.E.2d 612 (1981) (concluding that “there is a difference between attempting to prove that a defendant was in some definite place other than where the crime occurred, and attempting to prove that the defendant was not at the scene of the offense at the time it allegedly occurred”); State v. Anderson, 18 S.W.3d 11, 16 (Mo. App. 2000) (distinguishing the defenses of alibi and denial by noting that testimony showing the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, without specification of the defendant’s precise location, is not an al	1	1
State v. Volponegreen njsuperctappdiv · 1977 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	1	1
State v. Andersongreen moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	1	1
Occhicone v. Stategreen fla · 1990 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
State v. Eisenlordgreen arizctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998	1	1
State v. Milogreen kan · 1991 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (48)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Peters green kan · 1983 2 sentences 2004Dicta in other Kansas cases provides a broader definition for alibi taken from PIK Crim. 52.19, which noted that an instruction is not necessary for the alibi defense because it “is not an affir 724 mative defense, as is entrapment or insanity; it consists only of evidence showing drat the defendant was not present at the time or place of the crime.” State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983) (concluding that courts need not instruct on alibi as an affirmative defense); see also State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995) (considering whether to give an instruction 2004Dicta in other Kansas cases provides a broader definition for alibi taken from PIK Crim. 52.19, which noted that an instruction is not necessary for the alibi defense because it “is not an affir 724 mative defense, as is entrapment or insanity; it consists only of evidence showing drat the defendant was not present at the time or place of the crime.” State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983) (concluding that courts need not instruct on alibi as an affirmative defense); see also State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995) (considering whether to give an instruction	4	1992–2004
State v. James green kanctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2018This fact differentiates Butler's case from the two cases on which he relies- State v. James , 31 Kan. 2018Rather, the attorney simply reasoned that the potential witness didn't want to testify. 31 Kan.	2	2018–2018
State v. Thomas green kanctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2013App. 2d 728, 731-32 , 993 P.2d 1249 (1999), aff'd 270 Kan. 17 , 11 P.3d 1171 (2000) (defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file a notice of alibi but unsuccessfully tried to establish an alibi defense through witness who had not been properly and timely endorsed). 2013State v. Thomas, 270 Kan. 17, 17 , 11 P.3d 1171 (2000) (adopting the Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Thomas, 26 Kan.	2	2013–2013
State v. Thomas neutral kan · 2000 2 sentences 2013App. 2d 728, 731-32 , 993 P.2d 1249 (1999), aff'd 270 Kan. 17 , 11 P.3d 1171 (2000) (defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file a notice of alibi but unsuccessfully tried to establish an alibi defense through witness who had not been properly and timely endorsed). 2013State v. Thomas, 270 Kan. 17, 17 , 11 P.3d 1171 (2000) (adopting the Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Thomas, 26 Kan.	2	2013–2013
Colfax Ex Rel. Colfax v. Johnson green kan · 2000 2 sentences 2013App. 2d 728, 731-32 , 993 P.2d 1249 (1999), aff'd 270 Kan. 17 , 11 P.3d 1171 (2000) (defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file a notice of alibi but unsuccessfully tried to establish an alibi defense through witness who had not been properly and timely endorsed). 2013State v. Thomas, 270 Kan. 17, 17 , 11 P.3d 1171 (2000) (adopting the Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Thomas, 26 Kan.	2	2013–2013
State v. Claiborne green kan · 1997 2 sentences 2005Claiborne, 262 Kan. at 424 ; see also State v. Gibson, 30 Kan. 2005Claiborne, 262 Kan. at 423 .	2	2000–2005
State v. Holloman green kanctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2004Dicta in other Kansas cases provides a broader definition for alibi taken from PIK Crim. 52.19, which noted that an instruction is not necessary for the alibi defense because it “is not an affir 724 mative defense, as is entrapment or insanity; it consists only of evidence showing drat the defendant was not present at the time or place of the crime.” State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983) (concluding that courts need not instruct on alibi as an affirmative defense); see also State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995) (considering whether to give an instruction 2003*Courts have also stated that an alibi defense “consists only of evidence showing that tire defendant was not present at the time or place of the crime.” See State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983); State v. Holloman, 17 Kan.	2	2003–2004
State v. Marks green kan · 1979 2 sentences 1995As clearly pointed out in State v. Marks, [ 226 Kan. 704 ] there must be positive testimony presented for the express purpose of proving a version of how the homicide occurred which is contrary to the version presented by the State before instructions on lesser included offenses are required. 1984See e.g., State v. Hutton, 232 Kan. at 545, 554, 657 P.2d 567 (1983); State v. Marks, 226 Kan. 704, 711 , 602 P.2d 1344 (1979); State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532, 538 , 639 P.2d 461 (1982); State v. Cameron & Bentley, 216 Kan. 644, 651 , 533 P.2d 1255 (1975).	2	1984–1995
Breedlove v. State green kan · 2019 1 sentence 2025In Breedlove v. State, 310 Kan. 56 , 445 P.3d 1101 (2019), our Supreme Court addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to investigate an alibi defense.	1	2025–2025
State v. Banks green kan · 1975 2 sentences 2024Without some showing that these actions amounted to inadequate representation, they are fairly described as trial strategy, which is the "'exclusive province of the lawyer.'" State v. Brown, 305 Kan. 413 , 426, 382 P.3d 852 (2016) (quoting State v. Banks, 216 Kan. 390, 395 , 532 P.2d 1058 [1975]). 2024Without some showing that these actions amounted to inadequate representation, they are fairly described as trial strategy, which is the "'exclusive province of the lawyer.'" State v. Brown, 305 Kan. 413 , 426, 382 P.3d 852 (2016) (quoting State v. Banks, 216 Kan. 390, 395 , 532 P.2d 1058 [1975]).	1	2024–2024
State v. Johnson green kan · 2018 1 sentence 2024State v. Johnson, 307 Kan. 436 , 443, 410 P.3d 913 (2018). 6 According to Wagle, Thomas never told him about pursuing an alibi defense and never mentioned Aneshea as a witness until the first day of trial.	1	2024–2024
State v. White neutral kanctapp · 2021 1 sentence 2022App. 2d 458 , 494 P.3d 248 (2021).	1	2022–2022
Wardius v. Oregon green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 2021In Wardius, the Court held that an Oregon statute violated fundamental due process rights by requiring criminal defendants to identify before trial any witnesses supporting an alibi defense without imposing a reciprocal obligation on the State to disclose witnesses who would rebut the alibi. 412 U.S. at 472 . 2021The constitutional vice lay in "requir[ing] a defendant to divulge the details 10 of his own case while at the same time subjecting him to the hazard of surprise concerning refutation of the very pieces of evidence which he disclosed to the State." 412 U.S. at 476 .	1	2021–2021
Wimbley v. State green kan · 2011 1 sentence 2021Further, our Supreme Court observed that "the victim here sustained seven gunshot wounds to the upper body, fired at close range, providing a strong indicator that whoever killed the victim did so in a deliberate and premeditated manner." Wimbley, 292 Kan. at 808 .	1	2021–2021
State v. Shadden green kan · 2010 2 sentences 2014In State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010), we set forth the steps an appellate court applies in considering the admissibility of evidence: “Under the multistep evidentiary analysis, the first question is relevance. 2014In State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010), we set forth the steps an appellate court applies in considering the admissibility of evidence: “Under the multistep evidentiary analysis, the first question is relevance.	1	2014–2014
State v. Douglas green kan · 1984 2 sentences 2005State v. Douglas, 234 Kan. 605 , 675 P.2d 358 (1984). 2005State v. Douglas, 234 Kan. 605 , 675 P.2d 358 (1984).	1	2005–2005
State v. Lewis green kan · 1995 2 sentences 2005The cases cited by the State, State v. Lewis, 256 Kan. 929 , 889 P.2d 766 (1991), and State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532 , 639 P.2d 461 (1982), stand for the proposition that a defendant’s use of an alibi defense narrows the issue at trial to identity. 2005The cases cited by the State, State v. Lewis, 256 Kan. 929 , 889 P.2d 766 (1991), and State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532 , 639 P.2d 461 (1982), stand for the proposition that a defendant’s use of an alibi defense narrows the issue at trial to identity.	1	2005–2005
Commonwealth v. Johnson green pa · 1994	1	2004–2004
Commonwealth v. McQueen green pasuperct · 1955	1	2004–2004
State v. Ovitt green vt · 1967 1 sentence 2004See, e.g., People v. Fritz, 84 Ill. 2d 72, 76-78 , 417 N.E.2d 612 (1981) (concluding that “there is a difference between attempting to prove that a defendant was in some definite place other than where the crime occurred, and attempting to prove that the defendant was not at the scene of the offense at the time it allegedly occurred”); State v. Anderson, 18 S.W.3d 11, 16 (Mo. App. 2000) (distinguishing the defenses of alibi and denial by noting that testimony showing the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, without specification of the defendant’s precise location, is not an al	1	2004–2004
State v. Green green nc · 1966 2 sentences 2004See, e.g., People v. Fritz, 84 Ill. 2d 72, 76-78 , 417 N.E.2d 612 (1981) (concluding that “there is a difference between attempting to prove that a defendant was in some definite place other than where the crime occurred, and attempting to prove that the defendant was not at the scene of the offense at the time it allegedly occurred”); State v. Anderson, 18 S.W.3d 11, 16 (Mo. App. 2000) (distinguishing the defenses of alibi and denial by noting that testimony showing the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, without specification of the defendant’s precise location, is not an al 2004See, e.g., People v. Fritz, 84 Ill. 2d 72, 76-78 , 417 N.E.2d 612 (1981) (concluding that “there is a difference between attempting to prove that a defendant was in some definite place other than where the crime occurred, and attempting to prove that the defendant was not at the scene of the offense at the time it allegedly occurred”); State v. Anderson, 18 S.W.3d 11, 16 (Mo. App. 2000) (distinguishing the defenses of alibi and denial by noting that testimony showing the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, without specification of the defendant’s precise location, is not an al	1	2004–2004
State v. Skinner green kan · 1972	1	2001–2001
Talley v. State green kan · 1977	1	1999–1999
People v. Pittman neutral illappct · 1981	1	1998–1998
Singh v. United States green scotus · 1991	1	1998–1998
State v. Kirk green kan · 1972	1	1997–1997
State v. Roberts green kan · 1979	1	1997–1997
State v. Shehan green kan · 1987	1	1996–1996
State v. Mims green kan · 1977	1	1996–1996
State v. Crumm green kan · 1982	1	1994–1994
State v. Nott green kan · 1983	1	1989–1989
State v. Quick green kan · 1981	1	1987–1987
State v. Cameron & Bentley green kan · 1975	1	1984–1984
State v. Mims green kan · 1976	1	1983–1983
Doyle v. Ohio green scotus · 1976	1	1983–1983
State v. McQueen & Hardyway green kan · 1978	1	1980–1980
People v. Fields green ill · 1975	1	1977–1977
State v. Osburn green kan · 1975	1	1977–1977
Commonwealth v. Contakos green pa · 1974	1	1977–1977
People v. Suggs green illappct · 1977	1	1977–1977

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3218 (13) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (12) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3427 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3201 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3401 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-1507 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-404 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 60-445 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 337 (1910–2026) IL 273 (1934–2026) PA 213 (1933–2026) CA 167 (1922–2026) GA 158 (1911–2025) MI 140 (1926–2026) MO 131 (1893–2025) TX 99 (1972–2026) OH 96 (1977–2026) MS 94 (1951–2025) TN 86 (1970–2026) IN 85 (1902–2019) NJ 77 (1964–2026) CT 70 (1974–2024) FL 65 (1935–2025) WA 49 (1949–2025) KS 47 (1938–2025) MD 46 (1974–2022) MA 41 (1970–2023) WI 40 (1967–2026) OR 39 (1926–2026) AL 36 (1922–2025) AZ 35 (1945–2026) IA 34 (1911–2023) NC 31 (1973–2024) DC 29 (1972–2008) CO 28 (1947–2025) WV 28 (1930–2021) NM 26 (1968–2025) VA 24 (1978–2026) UT 23 (1911–2022) SC 22 (1974–2023) NE 21 (1897–2024) DE 20 (1979–2025) LA 20 (1975–2025) SD 16 (1945–2007) OK 16 (1933–1998) HI 15 (1983–2017) NH 15 (1984–2024) MN 14 (1953–2023) MT 12 (1978–2017) VT 11 (1979–2014) ID 10 (1972–2025) AK 10 (1978–2025) WY 9 (1977–2004) ND 7 (1980–2018) NV 7 (1971–2020) AR 6 (1983–2017) KY 5 (1961–2023) ME 4 (1977–2013) GU 3 (1978–2022) RI 3 (1979–1986)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check