Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 768 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20 (2026)

Alibi as defense in felony case; notice of intention to claim defense; notice of rebuttal; disclosure and calling of additional witnesses.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


768.20 Alibi as defense in felony case; notice of intention to claim defense; notice of rebuttal; disclosure and calling of additional witnesses.

Sec. 20.

    (1)  If a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his defense testimony to establish an alibi at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant shall at the time of arraignment on the information or within 15 days after that arraignment but not less than 10 days before the trial of the case, or at such other time as the court directs, file and serve upon the prosecuting attorney a notice in writing of his intention to claim that defense. The notice shall contain, as particularly as is known to the defendant or the defendant's attorney, the names of witnesses to be called in behalf of the defendant to establish that defense. The defendant's notice shall include specific information as to the place at which the accused claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense.

    (2) Within 10 days after the receipt of the defendant's notice but not later than 5 days before the trial of the case, or at such other time as the court may direct, the prosecuting attorney shall file and serve upon the defendant a notice of rebuttal which shall contain, as particularly as is known to the prosecuting attorney, the names of the witnesses whom the prosecuting attorney proposes to call in rebuttal to controvert the defendant's defense at the trial of the case.

    (3) Both the defendant and the prosecuting attorney shall be under a continuing duty to disclose promptly the names of additional witnesses which come to the attention of either party subsequent to filing their respective notices as provided in this section. Upon motion with notice to the other party and upon a showing by the moving party that the name of an additional witness was not available when the notice required by subsections (1) or (2) was filed and could not have been available by the exercise of due diligence, the additional witness may be called by the moving party to testify as a witness for the purpose of establishing or rebutting an alibi defense.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 24, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 17313 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 80, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 768.20 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 63, Eff. May 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 180, Eff. Aug. 6, 1975

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 2 of Act 63 of 1974 provides:

    “Effective date.

    “Section 2. To give judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel a reasonable opportunity to become aware of and familiar with the time periods and sequence prescribed in this amendatory act and the effects of noncompliance, sections 20 and 21 of chapter 8 of Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, being sections 768.20 and 768.21 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, as amended by this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974, and apply to cases in which the arraignment on an information occurs on or after that date. The other provisions of this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974 and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 160 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 26× “MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043. [1] Over defendant's objection, the trial court admitted the testimony of two rebuttal witnesses despite failure of the prosecution to provide notice before trial, and defendant then was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit…”
People v. Merritt, 238 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 12× “We are asked in this case to determine whether a trial judge abused his discretion in precluding defendant from testifying about an alibi or from presenting his alibi witnesses under our state's former alibi notice statute, MCLA 768.20; MSA 28.1043. Further, we are asked to…”
People v. Pickens, 521 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 6× “During his opening argument at trial, defense *304 counsel indicated that Eric Wright would testify that Pickens had been with him the day in question and had not delivered cocaine.”
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 12× “[14] MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043. [15] MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.”
People v. Carpenter, 627 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 768.20. [7] Before the Legislature's enactment of 1975 PA 180 , the test for determining legal insanity was controlled by Durfee .”
People v. Wilson, 282 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 10× “Raymond Pritchett, called over defense objection by the prosecution, testified that the house had already been painted by the date of the murder, that he had done most of the painting himself, and that defendant helped only intermittently, never more than 30 minutes at a time…”
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). · cites it 2× “§ 62-1341 (1964); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 768.20 , 768.21 (1948); Minn.”
People v. Seals, 776 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 768.20(1) provides: If a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his defense testimony to establish an alibi at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant shall at the time of arraignment on the information or within 15 days after that arraignment but not less…”
People v. Hall, 242 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “Defendant complains of the unconstitutionality of Michigan's former notice-of-alibi statute, MCLA 768.20; MSA 28.1043, in connection with an attempt by the prosecutor to introduce a prior inconsistent statement for alibi rebuttal.”
People v. Holland, 445 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “The defense attorney in this case, pursuant to statute, MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043, filed a notice of alibi.”
People v. Hamm, 298 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “The control *437 ling statute at the time in question was MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043, 3 which vested the trial judge with discretion to permit defendant to introduce the testimony of these rebuttal witnesses.”
Joseph Stewart v. Hugh Wolfenbarger, 468 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2006). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20 (1) (emphasis supplied).”
Show all 160 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20(1) — 40 cases
People v. Pickens, 521 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. 1994). “During his opening argument at trial, defense *304 counsel indicated that Eric Wright would testify that Pickens had been with him the day in question and had not delivered cocaine.”
People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 1993). “MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043. [1] Over defendant's objection, the trial court admitted the testimony of two rebuttal witnesses despite failure of the prosecution to provide notice before trial, and defendant then was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit…”
People v. Seals, 776 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 768.20(1) provides: If a defendant in a felony case proposes to offer in his defense testimony to establish an alibi at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant shall at the time of arraignment on the information or within 15 days after that arraignment but not less…”
People v. Wilson, 282 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Raymond Pritchett, called over defense objection by the prosecution, testified that the house had already been painted by the date of the murder, that he had done most of the painting himself, and that defendant helped only intermittently, never more than 30 minutes at a time…”
People v. Hence, 312 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20(2) — 16 cases
People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 1993). “MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043. [1] Over defendant's objection, the trial court admitted the testimony of two rebuttal witnesses despite failure of the prosecution to provide notice before trial, and defendant then was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit…”
People v. Wilson, 282 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Raymond Pritchett, called over defense objection by the prosecution, testified that the house had already been painted by the date of the murder, that he had done most of the painting himself, and that defendant helped only intermittently, never more than 30 minutes at a time…”
People v. Thurmond, 254 N.W.2d 879 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
People v. Hence, 312 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
People v. Lyles, 385 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20(3) — 7 cases
People v. Burwick, 537 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1995). “[14] MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043. [15] MCL 767.40a; MSA 28.”
People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. 1993). “MCL 768.20; MSA 28.1043. [1] Over defendant's objection, the trial court admitted the testimony of two rebuttal witnesses despite failure of the prosecution to provide notice before trial, and defendant then was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit…”
Marlon Bell v. Andrew Jackson, 379 F. App'x 440 (6th Cir. 2010).
People v. Bell, 425 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Matthews 428903 v. Carl (W.D. Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.20(a)(3) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Christopher Andrew Tank (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.