Case Title: State v. Adair

Citation: 106 Ariz. 4, 469 P.2d 823

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1970-06-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
106 Ariz. 4 (1970) 469 P.2d 823 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James Thomas ADAIR, Appellant. No. 2020. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. June 1, 1970. Rehearing Denied July 7, 1970. *5 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Robert E. Guzik, and John W. Lischer, Phoenix, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice. The appellant, James Thomas Adair (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was convicted of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to serve not less than ten years nor more than twenty years. From his conviction and sentence he appeals. He contends it was error for the trial court to permit the State to "pursue a line of questioning involving defendant's alleged prior acts of misconduct, not resulting in a felony conviction"; and that it was error for the trial court to refuse the testimony of an "alibi witness" who was unlisted in the notice required by Rule 192, subd. B, Rules of Crim.Proc., 17 A.R.S. As a third point he claims that the foregoing errors deprived him of his constitutional rights to a fair trial. The line of questioning objected to was the State's cross-examination of the defendant as to whether he had threatened the lives of his witnesses if they failed to testify favorably in his behalf. The cross-examination of the defendant was, in part, as follows: At this point the court overruled defendant's objection. Another objection was interposed which was sustained, but only as the questioning related to the defendant's parents, apparently because they were not listed as witnesses to the alibi.[1] A similar series of questions was put to each of the defendant's witnesses inquiring into whether their testimony was coerced. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the defendant has confused the principle relating to prior, similar occurrences as set forth in State v. Johnson, 94 Ariz. 303, 383 P.2d 862, with the acts that the State sought to show in the instant case. *6 In Johnson we reaffirmed the holding that a witness cannot be impeached by showing other acts of misconduct which are not sustained by a felony conviction. The alleged acts of misconduct of this defendant were not prior, but subsequent, to the crime charged, and they were admissible as being in the nature of an extra-judicial admission of guilt by the defendant's conduct evidencing a consciousness of guilt. We have on other occasions approved the admissibility of conduct evidencing a consciousness of guilt such as flight, State v. White, 101 Ariz. 164, 416 P.2d 597; State v. Loftis, 89 Ariz. 403, 363 P.2d 585; fabricating evidence, State v. Sowards, 99 Ariz. 22, 406 P.2d 202; State v. Loftis, supra; and subornation, Doughty v. State, 44 Ariz. 100, 33 P.2d 991. Attempts by a defendant to suppress or falsify testimony by bribes, threats, or other undue influence are admissible. See Garza v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 468, 358 S.W.2d 622; Collier v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 339 S.W.2d 167; State v. Russell, 62 Wash. 2d 635; 384 P.2d 334. In Johnson v. People, 149 Colo. 13, 367 P.2d 896, the court stated: Therefore, it was not error for the court to permit the State to embark on this line of questioning. The defendant then complains that the court refused to permit his mother to testify as to his alibi. In compliance with Rule 192, subd. B, Rules Crim.Proc., A.R.S.[2] a *7 notice of intent to plead alibi was filed listing the names of three witnesses, but did not include that of Mrs. Adair, defendant's mother. Rule 192 specifically places the decision as to alibi evidence, in absence of proper notice, within the discretion of the trial court. We have ruled that the entire defense of alibi can be excluded for failure to file a timely notice in State v. Dodd, 101 Ariz. 234, 418 P.2d 571. Surely the court's discretion extends to the narrower question whether or not to permit testimony by a witness not named in the notice and where the State is thereby deprived of the opportunity of preparing a rebuttal. Nowhere in the record is there given any reason for the failure to include the witness in the notice nor does the defendant, in his brief on this appeal, point to any explanation for such omission. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion. The defendant's final contention as to a deprivation of a fair trial is based on the existence of prejudicial error in the preceding questions. There being no error, his allegation is without merit. Judgment affirmed. LOCKWOOD, C.J., and UDALL, J., concur. [1] It is noteworthy that this ruling is entirely consistent with the trial court's subsequent refusal to permit the defendant's mother to testify as an alibi witness. [2] Rule 192. Plea of not guilty by reason of insanity or alibi; notice required; effect of failure to give notice A. When the defendant pleads not guilty and proposes to show in evidence that he was insane or mentally defective at the time of the alleged commission of the offense charged, he shall at the time he pleads, or at any time thereafter but not later than four days before trial, file with the clerk and serve upon the county attorney a written notice of his intention. If the defendant fails to file and serve such notice, he shall not be entitled to introduce evidence tending to establish such insanity or mental defect, but the court may permit such evidence to be introduced when good cause for the failure to file and serve the notice is shown. B. If a defendant intends to offer testimony to establish an alibi, he shall file with the clerk and serve upon the county attorney, not less than five days prior to the trial, written notice of intention to claim such defense. The notice shall contain the names of the witnesses to be used in support thereof and specific information as to the place at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. If a defendant fails to file the required notice, the court, in its discretion, may exclude evidence offered for the purpose of proving such defense.