Opinion ID: 1611682
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the evidence suppressed?

Text: Belisle argues that regardless of the status of the plea agreement, the proffer was impeachment material to which the defense was entitled. The State argues that it was not required to disclose the proffer because Annette had withdrawn from the plea agreement for which the proffer was created. We agree that the proffer was discoverable evidence that was suppressed. First, one of the State's attorneys stated at trial that he did not dispute that [the proffer] should have been turned over to the defense. Absolutely. [5] Second, the State signed the proffer on April 29, 2002, at which time the trial court had already entered an order entitling Belisle to discover [a]ll records, notes, memoranda, and documents in the possession of the state relating to the grant of immunity, promises, consideration, threats or any other inducements to any individual to obtain information or testimony about this crime by the State and any of its law enforcement or other agencies. [6] Under both the terms of the order [7] and Rule 16.3, Ala. R.Crim. P., [8] the State had a continuing duty to disclose the requested discovery as it became available. Therefore, the State's argument that it was not required to disclose the proffer because the plea agreement it accompanied was later rendered void is incorrect. At the time the plea agreement was made and the proffer was signed, the State was obligated to disclose the proffer because it relat[ed] to the ... promises, consideration, [and] threats ... to any individual to obtain information or testimony. Therefore, we conclude that the proffer was subject to the discovery order and was suppressed.