Opinion ID: 2518827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the State Properly Disclose the Dog Track Evidence?

Text: ¶ 36 Lord argues that we should dismiss the murder charge because the State failed to disclose allegedly exculpatory dog track evidence. We disagree. The prosecution has a duty to disclose all evidence in its possession that might be favorable to the defense. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). This court has also recognized that [t]o comport with due process, the prosecution has a duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense and a related duty to preserve such evidence for use by the defense. State v. Wittenbarger, 124 Wash.2d 467, 475, 880 P.2d 517 (1994). The duty to disclose includes anyone working on the State's behalf, including police. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). ¶ 37 Lord complains of the State's alleged failure to disclose more than the sheriff department's notes referring to the dog handler, which were provided before the first trial. See, e.g., Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Years later, before the second trial, the handler told defense investigators that his dog followed a trail of the victim from the stable to the nearby road. The handler also asserted that a woman in a motor home indicated that she had seen a girl who looked like the victim get into a car on the roadside. Br. of Appellant at 38. ¶ 38 However, the State did not receive and retain such extensive information. The police report only stated that the family had initiated a bloodhound track, which was performed by a private party. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Oct. 2, 2002) at 54. There is a reasonable explanation for the attenuated nature of the police report. At the time of the tracking, Ms. Parker was not yet formally considered missing by police. There was no evidence of foul play, no file number yet established for search information, and the matter was still being handled as a common runaway investigation. See 5 VRP (Feb. 25, 2003) at 588. Lord contends the State should have inquired about additional details, and then preserved the potentially exculpatory evidence. ¶ 39 This argument fails. The original disclosure of the police report was sufficient, especially since the existence of the handler was noted (Mr. Anderson was not identified by name and address, but his employment made his identification a simple matter, which was easily accomplished by the defense years later). See VRP (Oct. 2, 2002) at 46-47. Additionally, the disclosure satisfies the State's duty because the evidence was not per se exculpatory. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57-58, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) (when evidence is only potentially exculpatory, the defendant must show either prejudice or bad faith by law enforcement officials). ¶ 40 This information was only potentially exculpatory because it did not change the State's basic theory of the crime: Lord abducted Ms. Parker, either from the stable or from the road, before he transported her to the workshop where he raped and killed her. Suppl. Br. of Resp't at 16. The point of abduction was only incidental. ¶ 41 Lord has shown neither bad faith by the State nor prejudice. There is no Brady violation in the instant case because the State disclosed all of the information it had, namely a report showing the dog track was done. The handler's other opinions, e.g., that the dog usually followed the most recent scent, were not in the State's possession and did not prejudice the outcome of the proceeding. In re Pers. Restraint of Benn, 134 Wash.2d 868, 916, 952 P.2d 116 (1998) (the `question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence' (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555)). ¶ 42 Additionally, the defense team could have uncovered the full story of the dog handler through a diligent investigation. Evidence that could have been discovered but for lack of due diligence is not a Brady violation. See Benn, 134 Wash.2d at 917, 952 P.2d 116 (the court found no violation because the defense had been given a summary of the statement and counsel could have obtained further information through due diligence). The defense always knew that a private handler had searched for the missing girl with a bloodhound in 1986 but failed to investigate until 2002. VRP (Oct. 2, 2002) at 48-50. ¶ 43 The defense now attempts to place the burden of further investigation on the State, arguing that a roadside witness who allegedly spoke to the handler is now impossible to find. Every trial attorney must make difficult decisions regarding the allocation of resources. The first defense counsel did so in choosing other defenses, which were more likely to succeed than further investigation of the handler or a search for a roadside witness. Merely asserting that the State withheld information does not make it so. Here, the defense does not establish that the State withheld any exculpatory evidence or committed a Brady violation.