Opinion ID: 4565025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Grounds for Relief

Text: Although Oliver’s allegations are unclear, he appears to claim that photographs of the fingerprints were taken and withheld from the defense. In support of his contention, Oliver attaches a document from the crime-scene search unit that described the tests for fingerprints on the revolver, the spent casings, and the live rounds and concluded that there were no latent fingerprints on those objects. There is nothing in this document to indicate that photographs were taken of the nonexistent latent fingerprints. When a petitioner alleges a Brady violation as the basis for his or her claim of relief in coram nobis proceedings, the facts alleged in the petition must establish that there was evidence withheld that was both material and prejudicial such as to have prevented rendition of the judgment had it been known at the time of trial. Martinez-Marmol, 2018 4 Ark. 145, 544 S.W.3d 49. Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. Oliver has not shown that the fingerprint tests were withheld by the State in that the issue pertaining to the inadvertent destruction of fingerprint evidence was raised by the defense at trial and on appeal. Moreover, the forensic examiner’s conclusion that no latent fingerprints were identified on the revolver and other items was not material evidence such that it would have changed the outcome of the trial because the arresting officer testified that he saw the vehicle’s driver put his left arm out of the vehicle and fire three rounds into the air. The officer further testified that when he pulled the vehicle over, Oliver—not Gregory—exited from the driver’s side. In sum, Oliver has failed to demonstrate that the State withheld material evidence. Petition denied. HART, J., dissents.