State v. Hernandez-Sanchez

A “true Brady violation” occurs when undisclosed evidence is “favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-82, 119 S Ct 1936, 144 L Ed 2d 286 (1999).

Defendant appealed a conviction of two counts sodomy, two counts rape, three counts unlawful sexual penetration, and six counts sexual abuse. Defendant argued the lower court may have erred by failing to disclose all potential exculpatory evidence after three in camera overlooks of the confidential records from DHS. Defendant requested the Court to conduct their own in camera examination to look for exculpatory evidence to impeach M’s credibility. The State did not oppose Defendant’s request. A “true Brady violation” occurs when undisclosed evidence is “favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-82, 119 S Ct 1936, 144 L Ed 2d 286 (1999). The Court reviewed the evidence and concluded the evidence was not relevant nor prejudicial, thus, the trial court did not err. Convictions on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.