Court Opinion

ID: 9722099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:16:48.922135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:43.778717
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority that the prosecutor in the instant case violated MCL 768.20 et seq.; MSA 28.1043 et seq., and that the error was not harmless. Nevertheless, because *687I find that the majority fails to apply the appropriate standard delineated in subsection 3 of the statute to determine whether the prosecutor violated the act, I write separately.
I
Subsection 1 of the notice-of-alibi statute mandates in pertinent part:
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. [MCL 768.20(1); MSA 28.1043(1).]
Likewise, subsection 2 of the statute places a reciprocal duty upon the prosecutor:
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. [MCL 768.20(2); MSA 28.1043(2).]
Additionally, subsection 3 of the act details the exceptions to subsections 1 and 2:
Both the defendant and the prosecuting attorney shall be under a continuing duty to disclose *688promptly 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.’ [MCL 768.20(3); MSA 28.1043(3).]
This Court has long held that the purpose of statutory construction is to find and enforce the intent of the Legislature. Leoni Twp v Taylor, 20 Mich 148, 154-155 (1870). Because the Legislature is presumed to carefully craft the law to convey its intentions, the plain meaning of an unambiguous and clear statute must be enforced. Storey v Meijer, Inc, 431 Mich 368, 376; 429 NW2d 169 (1988). Of course, the meaning of a provision may be clarified by an examination of the whole statute. Collins v Secretary of State, 384 Mich 656, 666; 187 NW2d 423 (1971). Furthermore, if the application of legislation is ambiguous in a particular, case, then reference to the "object of the statute, the harm which it is designed to remedy” is appropriate to effectuate the Legislature’s intent. In re Forfeiture of $5,264, 432 Mich 242, 248; 439 NW2d 246 (1989).
II
Although the majority correctly finds that the prosecutor violated MCL 768.20 et seq.; MSA 28.1043 et seq., the opinion unfortunately misconstrues the internal workings of the statute. The plain language of the statute, viewed in its en*689tirety, delineates two pathways to grant sufficient notice of alibi witnesses. Subsections 1 and 2 delineate the usual pathway which requires notice before trial. Subsection 2, for example, unambiguously indicates that the normal procedure to be followed by the state is to notify a defendant of rebuttal alibi witnesses no later than five days before trial unless the trial court alters that date before trial. Although subsections 1 and 2 permit the trial court to alter the timing of notice, the statutory framework envisions that the date be set before trial.
While subsections 1 and 2 appear to focus on garden variety, pretrial notice of alibi witness (i.e., when parties know who the alibi witnesses are and can locate them), subsection 3 delineates the unusual pathway to be followed when a witness is newly discovered after the parameters for normal notice have passed (e.g., when a prosecution alibi witness is not located until the day of trial). In other words, subsection 3 outlines the exceptions to subsections 1 and 2. Subsection 3 permits late notice and endorsement of an alibi witness when the moving party can show that (1) the name of the witness was unavailable at the time notice normally would be required by subsections 1 and 2, and (2) the name "could not have been available by the exercise of due diligence . . . MCL 768.20(3); MSA 28.1043(3).1
As noted by the majority, the purpose of the *690notice-of-alibi statute is "to prevent the surprise introduction of an alibi defense.” Ante at 676. The prevention of surprise alibi defense witnesses serves the " 'ends of justice’ ” by granting both parties " 'the maximum possible amount of information with which to prepare their cases,” People v Merritt, 396 Mich 67, 77; 238 NW2d 31 (1976), quoting Wardius v Oregon, 412 US 470, 473; 93 S Ct 2208; 37 L Ed 2d 82 (1973), and prevents the abuse of the defense by the easy manufacture of " 'an eleventh-hour defense.’ ” Id., quoting Williams v Flordia, 399 US 78, 81; 90 S Ct 1893; 26 L Ed 2d 446 (1970).2 Concomitantly, the statute is also designed to prohibit the introduction of surprise prosecution rebuttal witnesses. Hence, to ensure that notice procedures are strictly adhered to by both defendants and prosecutors, the statute imposes a severe sanction that excludes the testimony sought to be admitted when a party fails to comply with its procedures,3 and specifies subsection 3 as its only exception.
Yet the majority permits prosecutors and defendants to evade the strict requirements of subsection 3 by interpreting the phrase "or at such other time as the court may direct” of subsection 2 to include time during trial. That phrase, however, appears to be intended to grant the trial court sufficient flexibility to cope with the rigors of a trial docket before trial, not to bypass subsection 3. If the Legislature intended to endow upon the trial court the ability to admit alibi witnesses even though notice was given after the beginning of trial without meeting the requirements of subsection 3, it could have written much clearer and *691forthright language than the phrase relied upon by the majority.
Furthermore, the majority’s interpretation of subsection 2 eviscerates the strict requirements of subsection 3. As noted, the statutory framework permits surprise alibi witnesses during trial only if their introduction meets the due diligence strictures of subsection 3.4 To hold otherwise renders subsection 3 all but meaningless. After all, the Legislature should not be understood to have created the strict requirements of subsection 3 when the lesser standard of subsections 1 and 2 could admit the same witnesses. Even the prosecutor recognizes that "MCL 768.20(1) and (2); MSA 28.1043(1) and (2) have their own specific time frames,” as opposed to subsection 3. Contrary to the assertions of the majority, maintaining the due diligence standard does not defeat the purpose of the notice-of-alibi statute, but preserves it. Finally, granting defendants and prosecutors the ability to introduce alibi witnesses during trial under the more lenient abuse of discretion standard is more akin to a " 'poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played,’ ” ante at 679, quoting Williams, supra at 82, than ensuring that defendants and prosecutors comply with subsection 3.5
III
In the instant case, the prosecutor clearly failed to comply with subsection 2 — no notice was given *692until the middle of trial. Nor did the prosecutor meet the requirements of subsection 3. First, the names of the witnesses were readily available before trial from police reports and the detective in the case. Second, the witnesses would have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. Although undefined by the statute, due diligence has been defined by Michigan courts as "doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.” People v Bell, 169 Mich App 306, 309; 425 NW2d 537 (1988).6 As noted by the majority, in the instant case the obtaining and giving notice of the witnesses in question was certainly within the realm of reasonable behavior and should not be excused to the detriment of defendant.

 In fact, the majority notes at least two situations for which subsection 3 was intended: People v Bell, 169 Mich App 306; 425 NW2d 537 (1988) (because alibi witnesses were uncooperative, the prosecutor was unable to discover the existence of rebuttal witnesses, hence the finding of due diligence was affirmed), and People v Diaz, 98 Mich App 675, 681; 296 NW2d 337 (1980) (a rebuttal witness was permitted to testify although notice was not given until the ninth day of trial because the identity of the witness was "not available when notice was required and could not have been available in the exercise of due diligence”).

 See also Epstein, Advance notice of alibi, 55 J Crim L & Criminology 29, 31 (1964).

 MCL 768.21; MSA 28.1044.

 Defendant counters that the due diligence standard should apply to subsection 2. Yet, no such standard is mandated in either subsection 1 or subsection 2.

 Furthermore, the majority’s utilization of federal authority is not persuasive because federal law explicitly defines "good cause” as its standard for exceptions to its notice requirements. FR Crim P 12.1(e). Michigan, on the other hand, has not adopted the "good cause” standard but instead enacted subsection 3.

 See also People v LeFlore (After Remand), 122 Mich App 314, 319; 333 NW2d 47 (1983).