Opinion ID: 1356455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Proffered Alibi Witness.

Text: The trial court disallowed a witness' testimony because of appellant's failure to afford the state with timely notice of proposed alibi testimony. [1] Appellant contends that such disallowance constitutes reversible error. We disagree. As we have stated: Statutes such as NRS 174.087(1) which require notice to the prosecution when an alibi defense is contemplated are usually strictly applied. Annot. 30 A.L.R.2d 480 (1953). Strict compliance is compelled with the purpose of preventing the popping up of alibi witnesses at the eleventh hour when the prosecution will be unable to investigate the veracity of the alibi testimony. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970); State v. Dodd, 101 Ariz. 234, 418 P.2d 571 (1966); People v. Schadd (Schade), 161 Misc. 212, 292 N.Y.S. 616, 617 (Queen's County Ct. N.Y. 1936); State ex rel. Simos v. Burke, 41 Wis.2d 129, 163 N.W.2d 177 (1968). Founts v. State, 87 Nev. 165, 169, 483 P.2d 654, 656 (1971). Eckert sought to have one Janice Zureck testify that they were together at the time of the alleged robbery. Appellant failed to provide the state with the notice-of-alibi  written or oral  until the conclusion of the state's case-in-chief and following the first defense witness after the fourth day of trial. Founts expressly places the decision as to admission of alibi evidence within the discretion of the trial court when good cause is shown irrespective of non-compliance with the statute. Id. at 169-70, 483 P.2d at 657. In jurisdictions where the trial courts have exercised their discretion and disallowed alibi testimony because of non-compliance with a notice-of-alibi statute, the appellate courts have rarely found abuse. Cox v. State, 219 So.2d 762, 765 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969); State v. Selbach, 268 Wis. 538, 68 N.W.2d 37, 38 (1955). For a well-reasoned analysis in a similar situation, see Founts v. State, 87 Nev. at 174, 483 P.2d at 657-659 (Batjer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In Founts, this court enumerated several factors demonstrating good cause. Included in these factors were considerations as to whether an excuse was shown for the omission and whether the alibi had such substance as to have probative value to the defense... . Id. at 169, 483 P.2d at 656. We find nothing which demonstrated good cause. Appellant informed his counsel at the time he was first represented that a young lady could testify for him. Appellant attempted to locate her himself more than three weeks prior to trial and no notice to such possible witness was conveyed to the state. [2] Additionally, unlike in Founts the testimony would not have contradicted a sole witness against appellant. [3] Although the discretion vested in the trial judge is not unfettered, we should uphold the court's exercise of that discretion absent manifest abuse. See Brown v. State, 81 Nev. 397, 400, 404 P.2d 428, 430 (1965). No good cause was demonstrated to permit the alibi testimony, in view of this statutory non-compliance Reese v. State, 95 Nev. 419, 423-24, 596 P.2d 212, 215-16 (1979); cf. State v. Adair, 106 Ariz. 4, 469 P.2d 823, 826 (1970) (defendant gave proper notice of alibi, but failed to include names of all witnesses and gave no explanation of failure); Founts v. State, 87 Nev. at 169-70, 483 P.2d at 656-57 (state provided with pretrial notice of alibi and proffered testimony contradicted that of sole witness against accused). Given the ease with which an alibi can be fabricated, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, at 81, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 1896, 26 L.Ed.2d 446, the government's interest in protecting against a belated defense and the suspect nature of the tendered alibi testimony, we are unable to conclude that the trial court erred in excluding Ms. Zureck's testimony.