State v. Harvey
358 So. 2d 1224 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the due process principles of Brady v. Maryland, a defendant's specific pretrial request for the prior criminal conviction records of the state's witnesses triggers the prosecutor's duty to respond by either furnishing the information or submitting it to the trial judge for a determination of whether the material must be disclosed.
Facts:
- James Harvey, Rennie Atwell, and Diane Lawrenson conspired to rob Robert A. Alexander.
- Pursuant to the conspiracy, Atwell and Lawrenson carried out an armed robbery of Alexander.
- During the course of the armed robbery, Alexander was killed.
- The proceeds of the robbery were subsequently divided among Harvey, Atwell, and Lawrenson.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana indicted James Harvey, Rennie Atwell, and Diane Lawrenson in trial court for the first-degree murder of Robert A. Alexander.
- Lawrenson's indictment was severed, and she received immunity in exchange for testifying for the State.
- The defendants' pre-trial motions for severance and to compel disclosure of witness criminal records were denied by the trial court.
- Following a joint trial, a jury found both Harvey and Atwell guilty of first-degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced both defendants to life imprisonment.
- Harvey's post-trial motion for a new trial, based on exculpatory testimony from Atwell, was denied.
- James Harvey and Rennie Atwell (appellants) appealed their convictions and sentences to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State's failure to respond to a defendant's specific request for the prior criminal conviction records of its witnesses violate the defendant's due process rights where such records could be used for impeachment?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, J.
Yes. The State's failure to respond to a specific and relevant request for its witnesses' prior conviction records is a due process violation. This Court has held that evidence favorable to an accused, including impeachment evidence, falls under the disclosure requirements of Brady v. Maryland. A defendant's request for the conviction records of the State's witnesses is a specific and relevant request for potentially exculpatory material. Therefore, the trial court erred in not requiring the prosecutor to respond, either by furnishing the records or submitting them to the court for an in-camera review. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine if material evidence was suppressed and, if so, whether that evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt when evaluated in the context of the entire record.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Marcus, J.
No. The prior criminal records of state witnesses do not constitute material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. Such records are not inherently material to guilt or punishment, nor would their omission typically create a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist. Furthermore, these are public records equally available to the defendant, and the defendant has a statutory right to cross-examine witnesses at trial regarding their prior convictions. Therefore, the majority's decision to remand on this issue is incorrect.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Calogero, J.
This opinion does not directly answer the primary issue but dissents on a separate ground. The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant Harvey's motion for a new trial. Co-defendant Atwell's post-conviction testimony exonerating Harvey was highly credible because it was a statement against Atwell's own penal interest, made after being advised of the risks. In the interest of justice, Harvey should have been granted a new trial based on this newly available exculpatory testimony.
Analysis:
This decision expands the scope of the State's disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland in Louisiana, clarifying that a witness's criminal conviction record constitutes potential exculpatory impeachment material. It establishes an affirmative duty for the prosecution to respond to a specific defense request for such information, rather than placing the burden solely on the defense to locate public records. The case also provides a clear procedural framework, based on United States v. Agurs, for trial courts to evaluate post-conviction Brady claims by determining if the suppressed evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to guilt.
