Citing references

State, 96 Nev. 96 , 605 P.2d 617 (1980); State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1980); State v. Mai, 54 Or. App. 334 , 634 P.2d 1367 (1981) (in banc), petition for review allowed, 292 Or. 334 , 644 P.2d 1126 (1981).

State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 371 (N.D. 1980). [¶ 12] A district court’s decision to exclude evidence of an alibi under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12.1 is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. Flohr , at 372.

State v. Flohr , 301 N.W.2d 367, 371 (N.D. 1980). [¶12] A district court’s decision to exclude evidence of an alibi under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12.1 is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard.   Flohr , at 372.  

See State v. Flohr , 301 N.W.2d 367, 371-72 (N.D. 1980) (“Rule 12.1 certainly does not represent an unconditional restriction on a defendant’s ability to make out his case.  

State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 371-72 (N.D. 1980). Without this rule, defendants could raise alibi defenses during the middle of a trial and deprive the prosecution of its ability to conduct pretrial investigations. Id.

Smith, 88 N.M. 541, 543 , 543 P.2d 834 (1975); State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 371 (N.D. 1980); Commonwealth v. Vecchiolli, 208 Pa. Super. 483, 489 , 224 A.2d 96 (1966); State ex rel. Simos v. Burke, 41 Wis. 2d 129, 139-40 , 163 N.W.2d 177 (1968).

In State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 370 (N.D. 1980), this Court recognized that any rule of procedure can affect substantive rights and thus violate the ex post facto laws and that the court can prevent such retroactive application: In Dobbert v.

Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 371 (N.D.1980) (“A defendant’s right to present evidence on his own behalf ... is not a right to confound otherwise reasonable rules of procedure aimed *592 at ascertaining the truth and accomplishing justice.”)- The United States Supreme

Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); see State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 371 (N.D.1980).

Compare State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 373 (N.D.1980) (trial court refused to allow offer of proof and in review, this court would not speculate as to the nature of the evidence). There is thus no record by which Wagner’s claim of error can be evaluated.

State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367 (N.D.1981).

Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367 (N.D.1980) (regardless of whether the district court suspects the proof to be offered is ultimately inadmissible, a record preserving the offer and the ruling is necessary for this Court to review the ruling). [¶ 13] Because necessary

Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367 (N.D.1981) (whether or not trial court suspects the proof to be offered is ultimately inadmissible, a record preserving the offer and the ruling is necessary if an appellate court is to carry out its reviewing function).

Johnson, 46 N.J. 289, 291 , 216 A.2d 392, 393 (1966); State v. Flohr, 301 N.W.2d 367, 373 (N.D.1980); In re Estate of Vallish, 431 Pa. 88, 95-96 , 244 A.2d 745, 749 (1968); Barci v.

Flohr , 301 N.W.2d 367, 371 (N.D. 1980) (“A defendant’s right to present evidence on his own behalf . . . is not a right to confound otherwise reasonable rules of procedure aimed at ascertaining the truth and accomplishing justice.”).  

In State v. Flohr , 301 N.W.2d 367, 370 (N.D. 1980), this Court recognized that any rule of procedure can affect substantive rights and thus violate the ex post facto laws and that the court can prevent such retroactive application: In Dobbert v.