People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262 (1975)

r
r

A ruling that a notice-of-alibi statute is unconstitutional will generally apply prospectively, except in cases where the statute was actually used to prevent a defendant from presenting an alibi defense.

r
r

Summary

r

The New York Court of Appeals considered whether its ruling on the unconstitutionality of a notice-of-alibi statute should be applied retroactively. The court held that its decision, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Wardius v. Oregon, would apply prospectively to trials beginning after June 11, 1973 (the date of the Wardius decision). However, it created an exception: the ruling would apply retroactively where the statute was used to prevent a defendant from introducing alibi testimony. Since Morales was able to present his alibi witnesses, the court found no reversible error.

r
r

Facts

r

The defendant, Morales, was convicted of a crime. Prior to trial, the prosecution demanded, and Morales provided, a list of his alibi witnesses under New York’s notice-of-alibi statute (Section 295-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). At trial, Morales presented his alibi witnesses, and the prosecution presented rebuttal witnesses. Morales appealed, arguing that the notice-of-alibi statute was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Wardius v. Oregon.

r
r

Procedural History

r

The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after the defendant was convicted and the conviction was upheld on appeal. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the application of the Wardius decision to the defendant’s case.

r
r

Issue(s)

r

Whether the ruling in Wardius v. Oregon, which declared a similar notice-of-alibi statute unconstitutional, should be applied retroactively to cases in New York where the trial began before the Wardius decision.

r
r

Holding

r

No, because the statute in this case did not operate to exclude testimony from the defendant, the court held that Wardius applies prospectively only, with an exception for cases where the statute was used to prevent a defendant from presenting alibi evidence.

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

The Court of Appeals recognized the similarity between the New York statute and the Oregon statute struck down in Wardius. The core of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Wardius was that a notice-of-alibi statute violates due process if it does not provide reciprocal discovery rights to the defendant. The New York court determined that Section 295-1 was indeed unconstitutional under the Wardius standard. However, the court then addressed the issue of retroactivity, acknowledging the principle that courts may make constitutional rulings prospective in the interest of justice, citing Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 726.

r
r

The court reasoned that in Morales’ case, the statute did not prevent him from presenting his alibi witnesses. The only effect of the statute was to deny Morales advance notice of the prosecution’s rebuttal witnesses, which