Facts
- Wardius was prosecuted in Oregon for the unlawful sale of narcotics.
- Oregon law required defendants to give advance written notice of an alibi defense and identify alibi witnesses, with the sanction of excluding alibi evidence for noncompliance.
- The statute did not require the prosecution to provide reciprocal discovery, including disclosure of rebuttal witnesses.
- At trial, Wardius sought to present an alibi through witness Colleen McFadden, who would testify they were together at a drive-in movie at the relevant time.
- Because Wardius had not filed the required notice, the trial court struck McFadden’s testimony and barred Wardius from testifying to an alibi.
- Wardius was convicted; the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review.
Issues
- Whether due process permits a state to require pretrial disclosure of an alibi defense and witnesses when the law provides no assured reciprocal disclosure of the prosecution’s rebuttal witnesses.
- Whether excluding alibi testimony as a sanction for noncompliance is constitutional when the discovery scheme is non-reciprocal.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- Due process requires reciprocal discovery as a matter of fundamental fairness when a state compels pretrial disclosure of an alibi defense.
- Oregon’s notice-of-alibi statute violated due process because it compelled defense disclosure without guaranteeing reciprocal disclosure of the State’s rebuttal witnesses.
- It was insufficient that prosecutors might voluntarily provide reciprocal information in some cases; the defendant must have fair notice of an enforceable opportunity to obtain it.
Legal Principles
- When a state imposes discovery duties on a criminal defendant (such as notice of alibi), due process requires a reciprocal disclosure duty on the prosecution.
- Fundamental fairness requires at least rough equality in criminal discovery; one-sided compelled disclosure that materially disadvantages the defense is unconstitutional.
- Due process cannot depend on prosecutorial discretion or informal practices; reciprocal discovery must be assured by law or an enforceable rule before compelled defense disclosure may be required.
- Notice-of-alibi rules are not categorically invalid, but they may not be enforced through exclusionary sanctions absent reciprocal prosecution disclosure.
Conclusion
The Court held that Oregon could not constitutionally enforce a notice-of-alibi requirement that compelled the defense to reveal its alibi while providing no assured reciprocal access to the State’s rebuttal witnesses, and it reversed Wardius’s conviction obtained under that non-reciprocal scheme.