(requiring defendants to “[gjive notice to the State of the intent to offer at trial” any one of several defenses, including duress and entrapment, as well as “specific information as to the nature and extent of the defense”). Defendants have challenged these requirements as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court and federal circuit courts have uniformly upheld theft validity. To begin, the Supreme Court concluded that notice-of-alibi rules like those in Florida do not violate a defendant’s due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, including a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 81-83, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970); but see Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 472, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, a trial court does not violate a
holding transfer eligibility rule did not deny the student equal protection of the laws or procedural or substantive due process under the fourteenth amendment holding that oregons procedure for appointment of temporary guardian for six months violated due process recognizing rule holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment was not violated by a ninetothree guilty verdict in a state noncapital case holding that oregons noticeofalibi rule violated defendants due process rights under fourteenth amendment where rule did not provide for reciprocal discovery