Opinion ID: 1743484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lykens' Motion for New Trial Should Be Analyzed as a Brady Issue.

Text: Although Lykens framed his supplemental motion for new trial as based on [n]ewly discovered evidence, in substance, the basis on which Lykens sought a new trial was a claim that the prosecution violated its duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), to disclose material evidence favorable to the defendant. Because Lykens framed the issue as one regarding newly discovered evidence, the parties and the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue using a mix of principles regarding newly discovered evidence and principles relating to the prosecution's claimed failure to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant. We conclude that the Court of Appeals analyzed Lykens' supplemental motion for new trial under the wrong principles. The substance of Lykens' allegations in support of his supplemental motion for new trial was that the State had failed to disclose the police interview of Brainard to Lykens prior to trial. Lykens claimed that such evidence was favorable to him and that therefore, the State should have disclosed the interview to him prior to trial. Although Lykens described such evidence as being newly discovered evidence, the claims Lykens made in support of his motion for new trial are more akin to those made by the defendants in cases such as State v. Van, 268 Neb. 814, 688 N.W.2d 600 (2004); State v. Shipps, 265 Neb. 342, 656 N.W.2d 622 (2003); and State v. Castor, 257 Neb. 572, 599 N.W.2d 201 (1999), which we analyzed under Brady. In Shipps, we described the defendant's basis for new trial as an assertion that the State wrongfully withheld exculpatory material ... depriving [the defendant] of a fair trial under U.S. Const. amend. XIV and Neb. Const. art. I, § 3. 265 Neb. at 352, 656 N.W.2d at 631. Our cases echo the language in Brady, which language states that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused ... violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Despite Lykens' references in the supplemental motion for new trial to newly discovered evidence, his allegations in support of the motion were in substance an assertion that the State had wrongfully withheld exculpatory material in contravention of Brady, and we determine that the motion should have been analyzed as raising a Brady issue. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeals to consider whether the interview was newly discovered evidence and instead, it was only necessary to consider whether, under the standards discussed below, the evidence was wrongfully withheld by the State such that Lykens was deprived of a fair trial.