Opinion ID: 1674612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alibi defenseabuse of discretion.

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the presentation of alibi testimony despite failure to comply with the notice-of-alibi ability statute. Although a new code of criminal procedure became effective on July 1, 1970, the former alibi statute, sec. 955.07, Stats. 1967, applied in these proceedings. [15] Under sec. 955.07 written notice of intention to rely on an alibi defense had to be given to the district attorney on the day of arraignment. The new statute requires such notice to be given on the day of arraignment or at least twenty days prior to trial. The defendant was represented by three different appointed attorneys during the course of his trial. His first attorney moved to withdraw as counsel on September 17, 1971, which was the original date of the preliminary examination. The motion was granted and another attorney was appointed. Prior to the preliminary examination this second attorney moved to have the complaint dismissed. This motion was denied and the preliminary examination continued. The defendant was bound over for trial and was arraigned on October 22, 1971, at which time he pleaded not guilty. On November 11, 1971, a third attorney was appointed. He represented the defendant until the conviction. On the day of the trial, January 24, 1972, the defendant requested that a new attorney be appointed because he was dissatisfied with the representation of his third attorney. This motion was denied. After a letter was received by the trial judge after conviction, still a fourth attorney was appointed to investigate and to make postconviction motions. That attorney did make a motion for a new trial on numerous grounds, not all of which are raised on this review. It is apparent from this record that the defendant had difficulty in getting along with any attorney. The problems caused by this apparent conflict with his courtappointed counsel must have been compounded by the defendant's speech difficulties. The record reveals that the defendant had a severe stuttering problem. Thus it was probably difficult for these various attorneys to do an adequate job of representation if the record does reveal dissatisfaction by the defendant which may have been manifested by lack of cooperation. His third trial attorney made extensive pretrial motions by which he hoped to suppress evidence of pretrial photographic identification and to show that in-trial identification was tainted. The record which was developed made it clear that this was a futile attempt. It was at this time that the third attorney decided to make some inquiries about the possibility of an alibi defense. The defendant, although he had a record of 14 prior criminal convictions, did not even mention the possibility of an alibi until January 6, 1972. The trial court could have reasonably concluded here that no good cause had been shown for the failure to give the notice at the proper time. [16]