United States v. Johnny R. White
443 F. 3d 582, 12 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 825, 69 Fed. R. Serv. 1005 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a specific alibi jury instruction only when the defense presents evidence that has some foundation in showing the defendant was at a location other than the scene of the crime at the specific time the crime was committed.
Facts:
- At 10:45 a.m. on January 9, 2004, a man wearing a ski mask robbed the State Financial Bank of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin.
- Following a high-speed chase of a vehicle leaving the scene, police apprehended the driver, Michael Page.
- Page identified his passenger, who had fled on foot with a bag of money, as Johnny White.
- At White's trial, his niece, Nailah Gentry, testified that White arrived at her house 'between 11:30, 12 o’clock' on the day of the robbery.
- Another defense witness, Isaac Sawyer, testified that he spoke with White on the phone for approximately one minute 'between 10:00 and 11:00' on the morning of the robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnny White was indicted in U.S. District Court on charges of armed robbery and possession of a firearm in connection with the robbery.
- At the conclusion of his trial, White's counsel requested a specific alibi jury instruction.
- The district court denied the request for a specific alibi instruction but provided the jury with a more general 'theory of defense' instruction.
- A jury found White guilty on both counts.
- White appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in denying the alibi instruction.
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 a district court abuse its discretion by refusing to provide a specific alibi jury instruction when the defendant's evidence does not place him in a different location at the precise time the alleged offense occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Bauer, Circuit Judge
No. A district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a specific alibi instruction where the evidence lacks a sufficient foundation. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a theory of defense only if it is supported by law and has some foundation in the evidence. An alibi defense requires evidence that places the defendant at a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time, making it physically impossible for him to have committed the offense. In this case, the robbery occurred at 10:45 a.m. Gentry's testimony placed White at her home no earlier than 11:30 a.m., well after the crime. Sawyer's testimony that he spoke to White for one minute 'between 10:00 and 11:00' was too vague to establish White's location at the specific time of the robbery. Because the evidence failed to provide a foundation for an alibi at 10:45 a.m., the district court was not required to give the specific instruction. The court's general theory of defense instruction, combined with instructions on the government's burden to prove every element of the crime (including the defendant's presence), was sufficient to protect the defendant's rights.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary threshold a defendant must meet to be entitled to a specific alibi jury instruction. It establishes that temporally imprecise or vague testimony that does not cover the specific time of the offense is insufficient to compel such an instruction. The ruling reinforces the trial court's discretion in crafting jury instructions and affirms that a general 'theory of defense' instruction can suffice when the evidence for a more specific defense is weak. This precedent guides lower courts in distinguishing between a legally sufficient alibi defense requiring a specific instruction and a general claim of non-presence that is adequately covered by other instructions on the government's burden of proof.
