Case ID: sc_300/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chandler, Justice:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

23106
    The STATE, Respondent v. Roy F. HUNTER, Appellant.
    (386 S. E. (2d) 460)
    Supreme Court
    Mitchell K. Byrd, Rock Hill, and S. C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
    Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Sol. William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.
    Heard Nov. 1, 1989.
    Decided Dec. 4, 1989.
   Chandler, Justice:

Appellant Roy F. Hunter (Hunter) contends the State failed to produce certain evidence required by Brady v. Maryland. We agree.

Prior to the call of the case, Hunter filed a Brady motion. During trial, it was revealed that the State had not disclosed all information to which he was entitled. The State’s failure to comply with Brady mandates reversal and a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, C. J., and Harwell, Finney and Toal, JJ., concur. 
      
       373 U. S. 83, 83 S. Ct., 1194, 10 L. Ed (2d) 215 (1963).