Opinion ID: 858503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Constitution Suppression Analysis

Text: [¶44] As an alternative to the rigors of the Brady analysis, Kovach offers an independent state constitutional basis to find reversible error in the prosecution’s failure to disclose the above-discussed evidence. Kovach contends that under the Wyoming Constitution, a prosecutor must disclose to the defense not only favorable material evidence but also any relevant evidence in its possession. Specifically, Kovach argues that the failure to disclose such evidence violates article I, § 6 of the Wyoming Constitution--the Wyoming due process guarantee, as well as the Wyoming constitutional provisions governing effective assistance of counsel, the right to present a complete defense, the right to effective cross-examination and separation of powers. Kovach also argues that a prosecutor’s decisions regarding evidence disclosure are an exercise of the State’s police power that affect a defendant’s fundamental rights and such decisions are therefore subject to a strict scrutiny level of judicial review. 18 [¶45] In determining whether the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection than its federal counterpart, we have identified six non-exclusive criteria to be considered: “1) the textual language of the provisions; 2) differences in the texts; 3) constitutional history; 4) preexisting state law; 5) structural differences; and 6) matters of particular state or local concern.” O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 24, 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005) (citing Saldana v. State, 846 P.2d 604, 622 (Wyo. 1993)). Applying these criteria, we conclude that Kovach has failed to articulate a separate and independent state constitutional basis for imposing such a broad disclosure obligation on the prosecution. [¶46] As discussed above, the basis for the Brady rule is the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained: The Brady rule is based on the requirement of due process. Its purpose is not to displace the adversary system as the primary means by which truth is uncovered, but to ensure that a miscarriage of justice does not occur. Thus, the prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial[.] United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3379-80 (1985) (footnotes omitted). [¶47] This Court likewise generally addresses a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence as a due process question. See Lawson, ¶ 53, 242 P.3d at 1009; Wilkening, ¶ 7, 172 P.3d at 386-87; Chauncey, ¶ 12, 127 P.3d at 21. Due process being our usual concern in these cases, we turn first to Kovach’s argument that Wyoming’s due process provision imposes a greater disclosure obligation than its federal counterpart. [¶48] Our decisions addressing a prosecutor’s failure to disclose evidence have analyzed the suppression under the Fourteenth Amendment and have followed the analysis prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our attention in that analysis has been not on the prosecutor’s conduct but instead on the materiality of the suppressed evidence and its impact on the trial’s fairness. Lawson, ¶ 53, 242 P.3d at 1009; Wilkening, ¶ 7, 172 P.3d at 386-87; Chauncey, ¶ 17, 127 P.3d at 22-23. In Lawson, we explained: [T]he constitutional obligation [to disclose unrequested information] is [not] measured by the moral culpability, or willfulness, of the prosecutor. If evidence highly probative of innocence is in his file, he should be presumed to recognize its significance even if he has actually overlooked it. Conversely, if evidence actually has no probative significance 19 at all, no purpose would be served by requiring a new trial simply because an inept prosecutor incorrectly believed he was suppressing a fact that would be vital to the defense. If the suppression of the evidence results in constitutional error, it is because of the character of the evidence, not the character of the prosecutor. Lawson, ¶ 53, 242 P.3d at 1009 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2401 (1976)). [¶49] Kovach’s argument based on the Wyoming Constitution essentially reverses our usual and accepted analysis. Rather than looking to the character of the evidence and the suppression’s effect on the trial, Kovach focuses entirely on the prosecutor’s power and discretion--and the need to restrain prosecutorial authority. Applying the O’Boyle factors to Wyoming’s due process provision, we are unable to find support for Kovach’s proposed approach to this question. [¶50] First, the text of Wyoming’s due process guarantee is indistinguishable from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, and Kovach thus cannot, and does not attempt to, support his argument by reference to textual differences. See Wyo. Const. art. I, § 6 (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”), U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”). Second, Kovach’s argument is at odds with our preexisting state law. Kovach contends that the Wyoming Constitution mandates that the prosecution disclose all relevant evidence in its possession, effectively asserting a constitutional right to discovery--a right that this Court has repeatedly held a criminal defendant does not have: Although there is no constitutional right to discovery, a defendant has a constitutionally protected right to present a defense. Ceja [v. State], 2009 WY 71, ¶ 13, 208 P.3d at 68; Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 5, 63 P.3d 875, 879 (Wyo. 2003). A defendant may request discovery of certain items from the state, but the state is only required to provide such information as indicated by statute, rule or case law. Ceja, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 13, 208 P.3d at 68. Washington v. State, 2011 WY 132, ¶ 17, 261 P.3d 717, 722 (Wyo. 2011); see also Gale v. State, 792 P.2d 570, 575 (Wyo. 1990) (defendant “does not have a general state or federal constitutional right to conduct wide-ranging criminal discovery in the state’s files”). 20 [¶51] We turn then to our next consideration, the history of the Wyoming constitutional provisions. This is where Kovach directs most of his argument with a lengthy recitation of Wyoming’s constitutional history. That history, however, gets us no closer to the interpretation urged by Kovach because he has not demonstrated how that history shifts a Wyoming due process analysis away from the fairness of the trial and our confidence in the trial’s outcome and toward a focus on the prosecutor’s conduct. As we observed in Lawson, the cornerstone of our analysis is the defendant’s fair trial, and our search for constitutional error must therefore focus on the character of the evidence suppressed and not on the prosecutor’s character or actions. Lawson, ¶ 53, 242 P.3d at 1009. [¶52] The remainder of Kovach’s state constitutional argument is likewise unpersuasive. Suppression of evidence does not present a separation of powers issue. The prosecutor decides what evidence to disclose, and a court subsequently reviews that decision to determine whether it comports with the defendant’s due process rights. And, while certainly a defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel, to present a complete defense, and to conduct an effective cross-examination, those rights do not equate to a constitutional right to discovery--or that is, a right to compel the prosecution to disclose all relevant information in its files. See Washington, ¶ 17, 261 P.3d at 722. [¶53] Finally, we also reject Kovach’s argument that we must review the prosecution’s suppression of evidence using a strict scrutiny analysis. Kovach has cited no authority that a prosecutor is exercising the State’s police power when he decides what evidence to disclose to the defense, and the proposed analysis is entirely at odds with the abovediscussed manner in which this Court has historically analyzed discovery and suppression issues. [¶54] Kovach has not demonstrated an independent state constitutional basis for evaluating the prosecutor’s failure to disclose the Issac Zimmerman e-mail, the prosecutor’s conversation with MW, or the Dave Huber interview. We therefore conclude, based on our Fourteenth Amendment review above, that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose this evidence did not result in a violation of Kovach’s due process rights.