0% found this document useful (0 votes)
974 views5 pages

Response Notice Defendants Supplemental Response Alibi Demand

The document is a response from the prosecution to the defendant's supplemental response to the state's alibi demand. The prosecution argues that the defendant's alibi still lacks specificity and does not adequately establish where the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense. The prosecution requests that the defendant be barred from adding further alibi testimony.

Uploaded by

kc wildmoon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
974 views5 pages

Response Notice Defendants Supplemental Response Alibi Demand

The document is a response from the prosecution to the defendant's supplemental response to the state's alibi demand. The prosecution argues that the defendant's alibi still lacks specificity and does not adequately establish where the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged offense. The prosecution requests that the defendant be barred from adding further alibi testimony.

Uploaded by

kc wildmoon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Electronically Filed

4/26/2024 3:05 PM
Second Judicial District, Latah County
Julie Fry, Clerk of the Court
By: Tamzen Reeves, Deputy Clerk

LATAH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE


WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, JR., ISB No, 2613
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
ASHLEY S. JENNINGS, ISB No. 8491
SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR
Latah County Courthouse
P.O. Box 8068
Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: (208) 883-2246
ISB No. 2613
[email protected]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND filDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LATAH

STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. CR29-22-2805


Plaintiff,
RESPONSE TO ''NOTICE OF
V. DEFENDANT'S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
BRYAN C. KOHBERGER TO STATE'S ALIBI DEMAND"
Defendant.

COMES NOW the State ofldaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting

Attorney, and submits the following initial response to the "Notice of Defendant's Supplemental

Response to State's Alibi Demand" filed herein on April 17, 2024.

At the outset, the State incorporates by reference as if fully set forth at this point those

portions of the State's July 27, 2023, "Motion to Compel 'Notice of Defense of Alibi' or,

Alternatively, to Bar Certain Evidence" to the· extent that it relates to the adequacy and timeliness

of defendant's alibi notice.

The State respectfully submits that the defendant's supplemental alibi response continues

RESPONSE TO "NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S


SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO STATE'S ALIBI DEMAND" 1
to lack the specificity required by Idaho Code 19-519 which provides that the defense "shall state

the specific place or places at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the alleged

offense and the names and addresses of the witnesses upon whom he intends to rely to establish

such alibi (emphasis added)." The defendant's April 17, 2024, submission minimally adds to the

alibi notice dated July 24, 2023. The defendant states that he was driving around during the early

morning hours of November 13, 2022, and drove "throughout the area south of Pullman,

Washington west of Moscow, Idaho including Wawawai Park." With the exception of the

reference to Wawawai Park (which is new), the defendant is offering nothing new to his initial

"alibi" that he was simply driving around during the morning hours of November 13, 2022. As

the State noted during the August 2023 hearing, the State is aware that the defendant was driving

around rural areas of Whitman County, Washington, and Latah County, Idaho, during the early

morning hours of November 13, 2022. In fact, the defendant's travels during that time are

described in the original Probable Cause Affidavit supporting the Criminal Complaint in this

case.

As to the Defendant's reference to potential testimony about the location of Defendant's

cell phone on the morning ofNovember 13, 2022, this information does not rise to the level of an

alibi at the time of the homicides because the Defendant's cell phone stopped reporting to the

cellular network before the homicides and continued to not report until after the homicides. The

location of Defendant's cell phone at times other than the time of the homicides is not proof of or

relevant to the Defendant's specific location at the time of the homicides (approximately 4:00 -

4:30 a.m. on November 13, 2022).

It is the State's position that the Defendant's continued failure to adequately comply with

Idaho Code 19-519(1) does not trigger a response under Idaho Code 19-519(2). If the Court

RESPONSE TO "NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S


SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO STATE'S ALIBI DEMAND" 2
deems the defendant's supplemental response to be in compliance with the requirements of Idaho

Code 19-519, the State requests additional time pursuant to Idaho Code 19-519(5) to prepare a

list of witnesses to establish the Defendant's presence at the scene of the homicides. As to

witnesses to rebut a claim of alibi, the Defendant's failure to adequately comply with Idaho Code

19-519 means the State does not know what specific assertions it needs to rebut. If the Court

allows the defense to offer further witnesses or information regarding alibi (which the State

opposes as described below) and bring it into compliance with Idaho Code 19-519, the State will

then respond accordingly pursuant to Idaho Code 19-519(2).

It has now been approximately 11 months since the State filed its "Request for Discovery

Disclosure; Alibi Demand" on May 23, 2023, and almost a year and a half since the homicides

occurred. The defendant has been given more time than he is legally entitled in order to provide

his alibi. The State is substantially prejudiced and compromised in its ability to investigate and

respond to new or additional alibi-related disclosures.

As the Idaho Court of Appeals noted in State v. Juarez, 196 Idaho 274,277 (Ct. App.

2021) "The State has a legitimate interest in obtaining timely and complete discovery response

from the defendant." The State respectfully submits that we essentially remain in the same

position as in July and August of 2023, and that, like Juarez, "(w)e don't know how this is an

alibi at all." Id. at 278. As the State further noted in its July 27, 2023, "Motion to Compel

'Notice of Defense of Alibi' or, Alternatively, to Bar Certain Evidence" the United States

Supreme Court has observed in Taylor v. Illinois the "ease with which an alibi can be fabricated"

and "the State's interest in protecting itself against an 11 th hour defense is both obvious and

legitimate." Taylor, 484 U.S. 400,410 (1988), citing to Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).

Based on the above, the State respectfully requests that the Court enter an order denying

RESPONSE TO "NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S


SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO STATE'S ALIBI DEMAND" 3
(

the defendant any further opportunity to add to any purported claim of alibi and preclude

testimony by anyone other than the Defendant "as to the defendant's absence from or presence at

the scene of the (homicide)". IC 19-519(4) .

• RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this


1
le:~:~
William W. Thompson,
Prosecutin y

RESPONSE TO "NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S


SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO STATE'S ALIBI DEMAND" 4
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the RESPONSE TO "NOTICE OF

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO STATE'S ALIBI DEMAND" were served

on the following in the manner indicated below:

Anne Taylor □ Mailed


Attorney at Law lZI E-filed & Served/ E-mailed
PO Box 9000
Coeur D Alene, ID 83 816-9000

Dated this 26th day of April, 2024.

RESPONSE TO "NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S


SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO STATE'S ALIBI DEMAND" 5

You might also like