## Facts

- Coffeyville police used a confidential informant (CI) to conduct a controlled buy of cocaine after searching the CI and her car, placing a transmitter on her, and providing $30 in recorded, marked bills.
- The CI drove to a house under police surveillance for drug activity and parked at the curb.
- Four men approached the car; officers listened to the encounter but did not visually identify the men. A detective recognized voices over the transmitter, including Calvin Shobe’s.
- The CI later described the seller as a man called “Jimmie” who took her money and gave her two rocks of cocaine; she selected Charles R. Deffebaugh, Jr.’s photograph from a photo array.
- Within 24 hours, police executed a search warrant at the house, finding Deffebaugh and other men, along with drugs, guns, and cash; one marked bill was found among the cash, and Deffebaugh claimed some of that money, including the marked bill.
- Deffebaugh was charged and tried for selling cocaine.
- The defense sought to call Shobe to testify that Shobe was present at the controlled buy but Deffebaugh was not; the State objected that this was “alibi” evidence requiring notice under K.S.A. 22-3218.
- The trial court barred Shobe from testifying that Deffebaugh was not present due to lack of alibi notice; the jury convicted Deffebaugh.

## Issues

1. Whether testimony that the defendant was not at the crime scene, without placing the defendant at another specific location, is “alibi” evidence triggering K.S.A. 22-3218’s notice requirement.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding Shobe’s proposed testimony for failure to provide alibi notice.
3. Whether the exclusion was harmless or required reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and agreed that the trial court misapplied K.S.A. 22-3218 by treating Shobe as an alibi witness.
- The court construed “alibi” to require evidence that the defendant was at another specific place at the relevant time, not merely evidence that the defendant was not at the crime scene.
- Because Shobe would only testify that Deffebaugh was not present at the controlled buy (without placing him elsewhere), the notice statute did not apply.
- Excluding Shobe’s testimony was error and was not harmless because it directly bore on identity and presence, key disputed points.
- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under K.S.A. 22-3218, an “alibi witness” is one who would testify the defendant was at a specific alternative location at the time of the offense; a witness who only denies the defendant’s presence at the crime scene is not an alibi witness.
- Statutory interpretation is reviewed independently on appeal; evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but discretion does not permit exclusion based on an incorrect legal standard.
- Erroneous exclusion of defense evidence is reversible when it affects substantial rights; constitutional error is harmless only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

Kansas limited alibi-notice preclusion to true “elsewhere” defenses, holding that a witness who only testifies the defendant was not at the scene is outside K.S.A. 22-3218; excluding such testimony was prejudicial and required a new trial.


State v. Deffebaugh, 279 Kan. 478, 89 P.3d 582 (Kan. 2004)