Opinion ID: 2621432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 40

Heading: Materiality is Tied to the Specificity of the Request

Text: ś 291 It is also important that the in camera review of the dependency files ordered by this court revealed no information regarding prostitution. In a United States Supreme Court case involving a remand for an in camera review, that court noted that the degree of specificity of [the defendant's] request may have a bearing on the trial court's assessment on remand of the materiality of the nondisclosure. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 58 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 989. While the trial court here declined to address the materiality of the information, this court should follow Ritchie's guidance and consider whether it fell within the parameters of the original request. ś 292 Evidence of prostitution was the sole reason defense counsel sought the dependency files. It cannot be said that the trial court wrongfully denied Gregory access to evidence that does not exist. It certainly cannot be said that the trial court's denying Gregory's access to nonexistent information amounts to an abuse of discretion. The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-10, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). ś 293 Unlike the majority, I would also uphold Gregory's rape conviction by a jury that fully and fairly considered all relevant evidence.