Court Opinion

ID: 9522695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:31:05.184904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:40.189975
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority except for its reversal of Count V against Taylor, which it treats in issue I.
It seems to me that the core issue concerning Taylor's argument regarding Count V and the amendment to the information changing the date of the alleged offense properly concerns the impact of his failure to file any notice of alibi concerning that count.
IC 85-36-4-1 et seq. governs the procedure for asserting the defense of alibi. Failure to give the required notice has been held to justify exelusion of the alibi evidence. Dooley v. State (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 1; Denney v. State (1988) Ind.App., 524 N.E.2d 1801. In Baxter v. Duckworth (N.D.Ind., 1989) 761 F.Supp. 576 the court found that thus enforcing the statute did not violate due process or a defendant's right to testify in his own behalf.
From this line of authority I conclude that Taylor's failure to assert an alibi defense waived his right to object to the amendment in question. That is to say that since he elected to forego making time of the essence concerning the allegations of count V, he may not now complain that the amendment prejudiced any substantial right to a fair trial.
I would also affirm the conviction on Count V.