Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: The admission of evidence during the State's direct case rebutting the anticipated alibi of the defendant Vega.

Text: Vega relied on an alibi as his defense. In the State's case, Alonzo Suggs, William Suggs and Emma Suggs testified for the State, and Vega now contends their testimony disproved his alibi. He further asserts it deprived the defendant of the benefit of reasonable doubt    to which he was entitled. The substance of their testimony was that Vega brought Alonza Suggs' automobile to the latter's home at about 12:30 A.M. on the morning of the crime and requested permission to spend the rest of the night there. At about 6:30 A.M. they discovered Vega and Alonzo's car were gone. At about 10 A.M. Vega returned with the car, and he then told Alonzo if anyone asked whether he (Vega) had been out of the house to tell them he had not, and said: If you tell anybody I have been off the place, I will kill you. Vega remained at the Suggs home until the detectives came for him. The record, by inference at least, indicates these witnesses had been subpoenaed by Vega in the hope they would substantiate his alibi. This additional information, however, is of little help in ascribing any merit to the argument which the defendant now advances. Their testimony was clearly relevant and material, for it traced the activities of the defendant immediately before and after the crime and eliminated almost in toto the defendant's false alibi. Their names were included in the amended bill of particulars furnished by the State, and certainly the State had as much right to call them as witnesses in its behalf as did the defendant. No party, criminal defendant or otherwise, has an exclusive right to any particular witness. We do not perceive any merit to the contention that the result of the State's calling these people as witnesses was to shift the burden of proof from the State to the defendant.