Summary 2006 WY 18

Summary of Decision issued February 2, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Chauncey v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 18

Docket Number: 04-119

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth Koski, Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Diane Courselle, Director, University of Wyoming Defender Aid Program; James Mowry, Student Intern; and Christopher Humphrey, Student Intern.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: February 2, 2006

Issues: Whether the Appellant’s due process rights were violated because the prosecution failed to provide him with reports from two law enforcement interviews.

Holdings: Brady v. Maryland and its progeny impose an affirmative duty on the prosecutor to learn of favorable evidence in the state’s control and divulge such evidence to the defendant. The Appellant received two documents prior to sentencing that he claims were exculpatory and should have been disclosed pursuant to Brady. The first was a summary of an interview with state’s witness CS conducted by DCI. The second is an interview of defense witness Richardson conducted by DCI. Much of the Appellant’s argument can be dismissed because he mischaracterizes the content of the interview of CS. A prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial. When the material sought has no bearing in the case, it is not favorable and non-disclosure is not error. The question of whether the CS interview should have been disclosed as favorable and material evidence because it had value as an impeachment tool remained. The Court reviewed the record and concluded that where a witness for the State has been exhaustively impeached, both generally and to the specific issue by the suppressed evidence, the court does not believe that one additional piece of cumulative information makes the verdict unworthy of confidence.
The Court reviewed the record to determine whether the Richardson interview was suppressed, favorable and material. While the Richardson interview was suppressed and favorable to the appellant, the State was correct that in this case, the information was not material. It was clear from the record and the transcript of Richardson’s testimony in a previous trial that Richardson was deeply involved in using and selling narcotics and she also played a role in manufacturing methamphetamine. Her efficacy as a witness would also be marred by the fact that she had no firsthand knowledge of any contact between CS and the Appellant on the night in question. During cross-examination she admitted to lying and not telling everything during her interviews. The Court determined that Richardson’s interview was not material and its nondisclosure was not a violation of Brady.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to case: http://tinyurl.com/7dmuv .