Opinion ID: 1439460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Disclose Impeachment Evidence

Text: For his second argument on appeal, Appellant argues that the State violated his constitutional right to due process for its failure to disclose impeachment evidence regarding informant agreements pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Specifically, Appellant maintains that the State failed to disclose documentation concerning Moffitt's negotiations for a plea bargain that could have been used for impeachment purposes and that the State's actions deprived the jurors of a full opportunity to evaluate the credibility of his testimony. A review of the record indicates that this argument was not raised below. Prior to trial, Appellant filed multiple motions related to discovery. Specifically, Appellant filed a motion for disclosure and discovery, a motion for inspection concerning informants and disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and a motion to require the State to reveal information about any prosecution witness that could conceivably influence his testimony. On January 16, 2004, the trial court denied the latter motion, but advised the State that if there is a plea negotiation or if you make some kind of a, quote, deal, unquote, with another witness that's not charged in exchange for his testimony, you're to reveal that to me and opposing counsel. In regards to the other two motions, Appellant and the State agreed to exchange the information in writing. In April of 2004, the State filed responses disclosing that Moffitt had a recent felony drug conviction in Craighead County, other past convictions, and that he was currently on parole. After this disclosure, Appellant never raised an argument to the trial court that any discovery violations occurred. As previously stated, this court cannot review issues not raised before the trial court. See, e.g., Flanery, 362 Ark. 311, 208 S.W.3d 187; Phillips, 361 Ark. 1, 203 S.W.3d 630; Marta, 336 Ark. 67, 983 S.W.2d 924. Consequently, Appellant's second argument is not preserved for appeal, and we will not address it.