People ex rel. Carey v. Strayhorn

• Decision Date: 02 June 1975
• Docket Number: No. 47276,47276
• Citation: 329 N.E.2d 194,61 Ill.2d 85
• Parties: The PEOPLE ex rel. Bernard CAREY, Petitioner, v. Earl E. STRAYHORN, Judge, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 194

329 N.E.2d 194

61 Ill.2d 85

The PEOPLE ex rel. Bernard CAREY, Petitioner, v. Earl E. STRAYHORN, Judge, et al., Respondents.

No. 47276.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 2, 1975.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel and Jayne A. Carr, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Laurence J. Bolon and Thomas D. Rafter, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for petitioner.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Michael P. Toomin, and Leo E. Holt, Chicago (Kathryn J. Kuhlen, John Thomas Moran and William P. Murphy, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for respondents.

GOLDENHERSH, Justice:

We allowed the motion of petitioner, Bernard Carey, State's Attorney of Cook County, for leave to file a petition seeking Mandamus (Rule 381, Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, § 381) or alternatively a supervisory order directed to the Honorable Earl E. Strayhorn, judge of the circuit court of Cook County, a respondent herein.

In a 29-count indictment, returned in the circuit court of Cook County, respondents Eugene Ford, Lloyd Lindsey and Willie Robinson (hereafter defendants) were charged with murder, burglary, aggravated battery, rape and arson.

The People filed a motion for pretrial discovery pursuant to Rule 413, which requested, Inter alia, notice of any defenses which the defendants intended to assert and the names and last known addresses of the persons whom they intended to call as witnesses. Attached to the motion was a 'Request for Notice of Alibi Defense' in which defendants were requested to furnish '1. Names and addresses of all alibi witnesses; 2. The place where the alibi witnesses maintain the defendants were when the alleged offense was committed.' The 'request' also advised defendants that 'Upon receipt of names and addresses of defense alibi witnesses, the State will furnish, prior to trial, the names and addresses of rebuttal alibi witnesses if not previously mentioned in a list of witnesses.'

The circuit court, and the parties, appear to have been in agreement that the 'Request for Notice of Alibi Defense' was not a separate document, but was a part of the People's motion for pretrial discovery, included therein for the purpose of making explicit that the motion for discovery included the requested alibi information. The circuit court directed defendants to respond to the discovery motion 'with the exception of the notice of alibi and the listing of any witnesses you choose to call if you intend to use an alibi.'

In this original action petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Mandamus or, alternatively, the entry of a supervisory order, to compel the respondent judge 'to grant the petitioner's motion for notice of any alibi defense, including the names and addresses of all alibi witnesses and the place where the alibi witnesses claim the defendant was when the alleged offense was committed.'

Petitioner contends that 'Pursuant to a motion seeking discovery under Rule 413(d) of the Supreme Court Rules, a defendant must give notice of his intention to interpose an alibi defense, the witnesses who will testify in support of that defense, and the place they will maintain the defendant was when the offense was committed.' He argues that the People's motion 'Put the defendant on notice of the People's intention to furnish, prior to trial, the names and addresses of alibi rebuttal witnesses in accordance with the requirements of due process as declared in Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, (93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82) (1973) and People v. Fields, 59 Ill.2d 516, (322 N.E.2d 33), * * *' and that the respondent judge improperly denied that part of the discovery motion which sought the notice of any alibi defense.

Defendants contend that the circuit court's denial of the People's motion seeking disclosure of the alibi defense was a discretionary judicial act not reviewable by Mandamus. They contend further that under the provisions of section 114--9(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 114--9(c)) the People are not required to supply the names of rebuttal witnesses, that their offer so to do is 'unenforceable' and that 'respondents (defendants) cannot be assured they will receive the reciprocal discovery to which they are entitled.' Respondent Strayhorn, in a separate brief, argues that although the circuit court was possessed of power to enforce the People's agreement as set forth in the request for notice of alibi defense, Rule 413(d) cannot 'take the place of the unconstitutional notice of alibi statute' and is 'facially in violation of due process of law under Wardius v. Oregon.'

We consider first the contentions concerning whether this is an appropriate case for the exercise of original jurisdiction. The record shows that the respondent circuit judge concluded that the rules of discovery in criminal cases (Rules 411 through 415) were not applicable to a defense of alibi, and that absent the statute (ch. 38, par. 114--14) held invalid in People v. Fields, 59 Ill.2d 516, 322 N.E.2d 33, there was no authority for ordering the discovery sought by the People. Although petitioner does not dispute defendants' contention that the respondent circuit judge rendered a judicial decision not ordinarily reviewable by Mandamus, he argues that the issue presented is of great importance, and that the usual appellate procedures do not provide an adequate method to determine the question. We have previously held that in the exercise of its supervisory and administrative powers, this court, when the issues involved are of great importance, may award Mandamus even though all of the normal criteria for its use are not present. This case presents an issue appropriately considered in an original action in Mandamus. People ex rel. Hanrahan v. Power, 54 Ill.2d 154, 295 N.E.2d 472; People v. Sears, 49 Ill.2d 14, 273 N.E.2d 380.

The rules providing for discovery in criminal cases (Rules 411 through 415) became effective on October 1, 1971. The alibi defense statute ch. 38, (par. 114--14) was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1967 (Laws of 1967, at 2808--9), and in an opinion filed on December 4, 1970 (People v. Holiday, 47 Ill.2d 300, 265 N.E.2d 634), was held to be constitutional. With a valid statute in force and effect when the rules were promulgated, there was no reason to include the defense of alibi in the disclosures contemplated by Rule 413(d).

Following our decision in Holiday and the adoption of our rules providing for discovery in criminal cases, the Supreme Court, in Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82, held unconstitutional an Oregon statute which precluded a defendant, who had failed to comply with its notice provisions, from introducing evidence to prove an alibi. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446, in which it had held valid a Florida rule of criminal procedure requiring disclosure of an alibi defense, and upon which decision this court relied in Holiday, and said, 'The Williams Court was therefore careful to note that 'Florida law provides for liberal discovery by the defendant against ...