Opinion ID: 2233526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Were Todden's Due Process Rights Violated by the State's Failure to Identify for Him, With Particularity, Allegedly False Evidence?

Text: Here Todden attempts to bring his case within the third Agurs situation, that is, where the prosecution fails to comply with the accused's general request for Brady material. He asserts that whether the nondisclosure was a result of negligence or design, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to correct it, citing Giglio, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104. He argues it was the duty of the prosecution to point out to the court that its witness Pontious had testified in contradiction to his own documentary evidence; that a duty to disclose is a duty to identify what is exculpatory. The State argues that, before trial, Todden was provided all the evidence that reflected the mislabeling error, thus there was no suppression of evidence. Much of what we have written in division I applies here. It is clear that before trial Todden had the information that he now claims was crucial, thus there was no suppression. State v. Hall, 249 N.W.2d 843, 847-48 (Iowa), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 822, 98 S.Ct. 66, 54 L.Ed.2d 79 (1977); see 3 Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules § 26:338, at 649-50 (1966) (In general there is no prejudicial error if the information withheld is otherwise in the possession of the defendant.). We find no due process violation in this regard.