State v. Deffebaugh
89 P.3d 582 (Kan. 2004) 277 Kan. 720 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testimony that a defendant was not present at the scene of the crime, without specifying the defendant's location elsewhere, is not an alibi defense. Therefore, it does not trigger the statutory requirement for the defense to provide pre-trial notice to the prosecution.
Facts:
- Police in Coffeyville arranged for an informant to make a controlled purchase of cocaine.
- The informant was searched, fitted with a listening device, and given $30 in marked bills.
- The informant drove to a house under police surveillance, where four men approached her car.
- She purchased two rocks of cocaine from one of the men.
- Police officers observing from a distance could not visually identify the seller, but an officer recognized the voice of Calvin Shobe over the listening device.
- Within 24 hours, the informant identified Charles R. Deffebaugh, Jr. from a photo array as the man who sold her the cocaine.
- Police later executed a search warrant on the house, finding Deffebaugh, Shobe, and others.
- Deffebaugh claimed ownership of money found on the floor, which included one of the marked bills from the controlled purchase.
Procedural Posture:
- At Deffebaugh's trial in the district court, he sought to introduce testimony from Calvin Shobe that Deffebaugh was not present at the drug sale.
- The State objected, arguing this was an alibi defense for which Deffebaugh had failed to provide the statutorily required notice.
- The trial court sustained the State's objection and excluded Shobe's testimony.
- A jury convicted Deffebaugh of one count of selling cocaine.
- Deffebaugh (appellant) appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court erroneously excluded the testimony.
- The State (petitioner) sought review from the Supreme Court of Kansas, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does eyewitness testimony that a defendant was not present at the scene of a crime, without asserting that the defendant was at a specific alternative location, constitute an "alibi" requiring pre-trial notice to the prosecution under K.S.A. 22-3218?
Opinions:
Majority - Gernon, J.
No. Eyewitness testimony merely stating a defendant was not present at the crime scene does not constitute an alibi defense requiring pre-trial notice. The court held that K.S.A. 22-3218, when read as a whole, requires notice only when the defense intends to offer evidence that the defendant was at a specific other place at the time of the crime. The statutory requirement that the notice must state 'where defendant contends he was' limits the broader definition of alibi to evidence of a specific, alternative location. Testimony that simply rebuts the State's evidence of the defendant's presence at the scene, without offering a specific whereabouts, is not an alibi. This interpretation aligns with the statute's purpose—to prevent surprise from a fabricated, last-minute defense about a different location that the State has no time to investigate. The State must always be prepared to prove the defendant's presence at the scene, so testimony rebutting that presence is not a surprise in the same way a true alibi defense would be.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and narrows the definition of an "alibi defense" for the purposes of procedural notice requirements in Kansas. It distinguishes between an affirmative defense, which introduces a new factual issue (the defendant's presence elsewhere), and simple rebuttal evidence that attacks the prosecution's case-in-chief. This protects a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses by preventing the exclusion of crucial eyewitness testimony on procedural grounds. The ruling ensures that defendants can challenge the prosecution's account of events without being forced to disclose their entire defense strategy, unless they are presenting a classic alibi involving a specific location.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Deffebaugh