Opinion ID: 1640733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the state failed to disclose exculpatory information about charles rice.

Text: ¶ 12. Unquestionably, the State's critical witness at trial was Charles Rice, who testified that he saw Howell shoot Pernell on Broad Street. Howell claims that the State withheld relevant information about Rice which would have discredited his testimony against Howell at trial. In his petition, Howell asserts that Rice had been incarcerated in Illinois in the early 1980s; that he had been affiliated with gangs while in prison; that he had perjured himself about his work history; that he was a drug user at the time of the killing; and that he knew Howell from previous encounters. Prior to trial, Howell's attorneys filed a motion entitled Rule 9.04 Motion in which the defense sought general discovery material from the State. See Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice 9.04. Notably, the defense requested information concerning the criminal history of Howell and his co-defendants. There was no specific request for information about any other witness's criminal history. ¶ 13. It is well established that the State had the duty to turn over all exculpatory material relevant to Howell's case. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218 (1963). See also Howard v. State, 945 So.2d 326, 337 (Miss.2006); Simon v. State, 857 So.2d 668, 699 (Miss.2003). ¶ 14. In order to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must show: (1) that the State possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) that the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it himself with reasonable diligence; (3) that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Howard, 945 So.2d at 337; King v. State, 656 So.2d 1168, 1174 (Miss.1995). ¶ 15. Howell alleges that the State failed to disclose that Rice had been arrested several times; that he had been convicted of burglary; and that he had been incarcerated in Illinois in the 1980s, during which time he was a member of a prison gang. The State presents the affidavit of Kelly Luther, the assistant district attorney who prepared the case against Howell. Luther says that he never sought a criminal background check for Rice and that the defense never asked for a criminal background check on Rice prior to trial; however, Luther states the State turned over all discoverable evidence, exculpatory or not, to the defense. Both the trial court record and the post-conviction-proceedings record are devoid of any evidence indicating that the State withheld information that would have been about Rice's criminal history. As to Howell's claim that the State failed to disclose information helpful to the defense about Rice's criminal background, we find that Howell has failed to show that the State possessed the information or that the State suppressed that information. Alternatively, Howell argues that the State should have run a criminal background check on Rice; however, Howell cites no authority which would require the State to run criminal checks on every prosecution witness. Therefore, we are under no obligation to review this issue. Dampier v. State, 973 So.2d 221, 228-29 (Miss.2008) (citing Glasper v. State, 914 So.2d 708, 726 (Miss.2005)). ¶ 16. We also note that Rice's felony conviction occurred in 1983, almost seventeen years before Pernell was murdered. Whether impeachment of Rice concerning his seventeen-year-old conviction for burglary would have been admissible is doubtful. See Miss. Rule of Evid. 609 (Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement....). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the probative value of the conviction supported by the specific facts and circumstances substantially outweigh[ed] its prejudicial effect. Miss. R. Evid. 609(b). See Tate v. State, 912 So.2d 919, 924 n. 6 (Miss.2005); Jones v. State, 776 So.2d 643, 651-52 (Miss.2000). We find that the State was not required to obtain the criminal history on all its witnesses, especially when there was no such request by the defense for this information.