alibi defense in Illinois

2023He also stated that he had spoken to Hill’s cousin and that she was unable to verify Hill’s alibi. “ ‘Whether to call certain witnesses and whether to present an alibi defense are matters of trial strategy, generally reserved to the discretion of trial counsel.’ ” Id. ¶ 106 (quoting People v. Kidd, 175 Ill. 2d 1, 45 (1996)).

2023“Whether to call certain witnesses and whether to present an alibi defense are matters of trial strategy, generally reserved to the discretion of trial counsel.” Kidd, 175 Ill. 2d at 45 .

2006See John- son, 353 Ill.

2006See Johnson, 353 Ill.

2003See, e.g., State v. Moon, 45 Wash. App. 692 , 726 P.2d 1263 (1986) (listing as factors, the identification of the defendant is the principal issue at trial, the presentation of an alibi defense and little or no other evidence linking the defendant to the crime).

2003See, e.g., State v. Moon, 45 Wash. App. 692 , 726 P.2d 1263 (1986) (listing as factors, the identification of the defendant is the principal issue at trial, the presentation of an alibi defense and little or no other evidence linking the defendant to the crime).

2004Ed. 2d 446, 450-51 , 90 S. Ct. 1893, 1896-97 (1970) (rule requiring notice to the State of an alibi defense and to disclose alibi witnesses does not violate a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination).

2004Ed. 2d 446, 450-51 , 90 S. Ct. 1893, 1896-97 (1970) ( rule requiring notice to the State of an alibi defense and to disclose alibi witnesses does not violate a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination).

2024In People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-79 (2003), our supreme court explained the Krankel procedure as follows: -9- 2024 IL App (2d) 230295-U “In [Krankel,] the defendant’s trial counsel failed to contact an alibi witness or to present an alibi defense at trial.

2024An appellate argument that the trial court failed to comply with Krankel and its progeny would have been meritless, so defendant suffered no prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure to raise such an argument. ¶ 45 In People v. Moore, 207 Ill. 2d 68, 77-79 (2003), our supreme court explained the Krankel procedure: “In [Krankel], the defendant’s trial counsel failed to contact an alibi witness or to present an alibi defense at trial.

2021Id.

2016Given the weaknesses in the alibi that these affidavits provide, defendant’s trial counsel could reasonably have concluded, after a reasonable investigation, that foregoing an alibi defense, and instead attacking the State’s identification evidence, was sound trial strategy. ¶ 61 Defendant argues that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under People v. Morris, 335 Ill.

2023Kokoraleis, 159 Ill. 2d at 328 (the duty to investigate possible defenses is a “subset” of defense counsel’s overall obligations). ¶ 114 “Where the record establishes that counsel had reason to know, from an objective standpoint, that a possible defense [such as an alibi defense] was available, failure to investigate fully can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Internal citations and emphasis omitted.) Brown v. Sternes, 304 F. 3d 677, 692 (7th Cir. 2002); see e.g., People v. Bolden, 2014 IL App (1st) 123527, ¶ 38 (holding that defense counsel’s failure to investigate and contact a

2017People v. Brown, 336 Ill.

2020See, e.g., People v. Gabriel, 398 Ill.

2019See, e.g. , People v. Gabriel , 398 Ill.

2017People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 378 (2000).

2017People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 378 (2000).

2025See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . -8- 2025 IL App (2d) 240172 decision not to present an alibi defense constituted deficient performance.

2025Therefore, we will analyze Servin’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the two-part test announced by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), adopted by our supreme court in People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (1984). ¶ 83 Under the first part of this test, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was so deficient that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 - 88.

2023He also stated that he had spoken to Hill’s cousin and that she was unable to verify Hill’s alibi. “ ‘Whether to call certain witnesses and whether to present an alibi defense are matters of trial strategy, generally reserved to the discretion of trial counsel.’ ” Id. ¶ 106 (quoting People v. Kidd, 175 Ill. 2d 1, 45 (1996)).

2022Oct. 1, 2020) (“Points not argued are forfeited and shall not be raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing”). 21 No. 1-20-0979 ¶ 49 “ ‘Whether to call certain witnesses and whether to present an alibi defense are matters of trial strategy, generally reserved to the discretion of trial counsel.’ ” People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 106 (quoting People v. Kidd, 175 Ill. 2d 1, 45 (1996)).

2020People v. Diaz, 78 Ill.

2015People v. Diaz, 78 Ill.

2015People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 397-98 (1998). ¶ 39 As the trial court noted, although defense counsel did not formally present an alibi defense, he was allowed to present defendant’s mother and brother as witnesses who testified that defendant was at home when the shooting occurred.

2015People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 397-98 (1998). ¶ 39 As the trial court noted, although defense counsel did not formally present an alibi defense, he was allowed to present defendant's mother and brother as witnesses who testified that defendant was at home when the shooting occurred.

2026People v. Ingram, 389 Ill.

2025People v. Ingram, 389 Ill.

2025Cf. Briones, 352 Ill.

2024For example, in People v. Briones, 352 Ill.

2022See People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 .

2021See People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 .

2022In response, the State contends that the jury was properly instructed and an alibi instruction is not recommended. ¶ 142 “The purpose of jury instructions is to provide the jury with the correct legal principles applicable to the evidence, so that the jury may reach a correct conclusion according to the law and the evidence.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 81 (2008).

2021He also argues, for the first time in his reply brief, the court erred in instructing the jury it could consider the other-crimes evidence on the issue of identity because he did not assert an alibi defense but, rather, presented evidence that his opportunity to commit the charged offenses was reduced by reason of his employment, which was not a true alibi defense. ¶ 52 A. Standard of Review ¶ 53 “The purpose of jury instructions is to provide the jury with the correct legal principles applicable to the evidence, so that the jury may reach a correct conclusion according to the law and the evid

2021Also, generally, “trial strategy encompasses decisions such as what matters to object to and when to object.” People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (1991); see People v. Leger, 149 Ill. 2d 355, 396-97 (1992).

2020Also, generally, “trial strategy encompasses decisions such as what matters to object to and when to object.” People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (1991); see People v. Leger, 149 Ill. 2d 355, 396-97 (1992).

2021Also, generally, “trial strategy encompasses decisions such as what matters to object to and when to object.” People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (1991); see People v. Leger, 149 Ill. 2d 355, 396-97 (1992).

2020Also, generally, “trial strategy encompasses decisions such as what matters to object to and when to object.” People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (1991); see People v. Leger, 149 Ill. 2d 355, 396-97 (1992).

2017See United States v. - 16 - No. 1-15-2021 Guillette, 547 F.2d 743, 752 (2d Cir. 1976) (recognizing “a danger likely to arise when jurors, untrained in the law, disbelieve alibi testimony and are inclined to view the failure of the defense as a sign of the defendant’s guilt”); United States v. Burse, 531 F.2d 1151, 1153 (2d Cir. 1976) (“In those cases where an alibi defense is presented, there exists the danger that the failure to prove that defense will be taken by the jury as a sign of the defendant’s guilt.”). ¶ 41 The circuit court watched and listened to the sisters testify and concluded t

2017See United States v. Guillette, 547 F.2d 743, 752 (2d Cir. 1976) (recognizing “a danger likely to arise when jurors, untrained in the law, disbelieve alibi testimony and are inclined to view the failure of the defense as a sign of the defendant’s guilt”); United States v. Burse, 531 F.2d 1151, 1153 (2d Cir. 1976) (“In those cases where an alibi defense is presented, there exists the danger that the failure to prove that defense will be taken by the jury as a sign of the defendant’s guilt.”). ¶ 41 The circuit court watched and listened to the sisters testify and concluded that their claims to h

2026The trial court held a posttrial hearing pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), regarding defendant’s claims, among others, that (1) his counsel erred in not submitting the alibi defense prior to trial, (2) his counsel should 4 No. 1-24-0705 have introduced a police report containing his mother’s pretrial statement, and (3) his counsel failed to interview Robert Coker and Tenisha Coleman as possible defense witnesses.

2021Thomas now appeals. ¶ 18 In this appeal, Thomas argues: (1) the State used perjured testimony from Detective Verta to obtain Thomas’s conviction; (2) we should remand for proceedings under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), because even his conclusory allegation triggered the trial court’s duty to inquire; (3) trial counsel failed to render effective assistance when he abandoned the alibi defense without an adequate investigation; and (4) the trial court erred by not allowing discovery at the second stage of postconviction proceedings. ¶ 19 ANALYSIS ¶ 20 The Postconviction Hearing Act

2023See e.g., People v. King, 316 Ill.

2021In King, 316 Ill.

2023Id.

2020A defendant who claims ineffective assistance of counsel has the burden to “overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s action or inaction was the result of sound trial strategy.” People v. Anderson, 2013 IL App (2d) 111183, ¶ 54 . “ ‘Defense counsel has a professional obligation, both legal and ethical, to explore and investigate a client’s alibi defense.’ ” People v. English, 403 Ill.

2022See Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 47 .

2020Based upon the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849 , we conclude that defendant has made a sufficient showing that he is entitled to a third-stage evidentiary hearing. ¶9 I.