Opinion ID: 1212322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Cause for Failure to Raise the Claim Previously

Text: The cause portion of the cause and prejudice test is satisfied where evidence was concealed from [the defendant] by the State at the time of trial and direct appeal. [6] Thus, the cause prong of the cause and prejudice test would be satisfied in Whatley's case if the facts showed that trial counsel was not given notice of and access to the contents of the January 27 statement. Without any detailed analysis, the habeas court found that Whatley had failed to show cause for his failure to raise this claim in the trial court and on direct appeal, concluding that the claim was available for presentation at that time. We find that the habeas court's finding of an absence of cause to excuse the procedural default was erroneous. In its analysis of the prejudice prong of the cause and prejudice test, which is discussed below, the habeas court found that a review of trial counsel's cross-examination questions and Mr. Bunn's responses to these questions showed trial counsel's awareness of the January 27 interview. A review of the trial transcript does not support this finding of fact. Trial counsel's cross-examination questions about Tommy Bunn's having failed to inform police that shots were fired before Allen began to pursue Whatley could have been derived from the January 26 interview, the January 27 interview, or both. However, trial counsel specifically stated in his cross-examination that he was relying on the January 26 interview. Although not discussed in the habeas court's order, the district attorney conceded in his habeas testimony that he had not been provided the January 27 interview by the police department and, therefore, that trial counsel would not have had access to it. Trial counsel, having passed away, was not available to give habeas testimony on the subject; however, the January 27 interview was not contained in trial counsel's file, and the defense investigator testified that he had not been aware that the interview existed. In light of the trial transcript and the uncontradicted habeas testimony, including an admission by the district attorney, we find that the habeas court's finding of fact that the January 27 interview was available to counsel at trial and on direct appeal was clearly erroneous. The State's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence applies to every part of the State that is involved in the prosecution, which, of course, would include the police department in Whatley's case. [7] Given the fact that the State bore this duty of disclosure and given the absence of any reason to believe trial counsel should have been aware of the likelihood of a second, arguably contradictory interview of Bunn, the failure of trial counsel to discover the undisclosed interview should not be ascribed to a lack of reasonable diligence. [8] Accordingly, we conclude that Whatley has shown cause for his failure to raise his claim regarding the undisclosed January 27 interview at trial and on direct appeal.