Opinion ID: 1407422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brady Motion

Text: Appellant moved the trial court to require the Solicitor to open his file under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The Solicitor told the court: Your Honor, we have made available to [Appellant] everything that has been supplied to us. I found nothing in it that I felt was exculpatory or mitigating, however, they might draw a different conclusion. It has been provided to them. . . . We have complied. The trial court refused Appellant's request that he be allowed to see the entire file, and the court then ordered the entire file, including attorney work product, sealed and made a part of the record. The court did not review the contents of the file in camera. Appellant argues that this exchange should have alerted the judge that there was undisclosed material remaining in the file which Appellant might conclude was exculpatory. Appellant further argues that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an in camera inspection of the file. We disagree. Brady requires that the State disclose evidence in its possession favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. State v. Bryant, 307 S.C. 458, 415 S.E.2d 806 (1992). Before the State must produce undisclosed evidence for the trial court's inspection, the defendant must first establish a basis for his claim that it contains material exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Id. The trial court should then rule upon the materiality of the evidence to determine whether the State must produce it for the defendant's use. Id. Appellant made no showing that the file contained any undisclosed material exculpatory or impeachment evidence. In lieu of this showing, Appellant argues that the Solicitor's statementI found nothing in it that I felt was exculpatory or mitigating, however, they might draw a different conclusion. [1]  should have alerted the court that the file might contain undisclosed Brady material. We agree with Respondent that what the Solicitor was saying was that he had supplied Appellant with all Brady material, but that Appellant might disagree about the exculpatory nature of what had been provided to him.