Opinion ID: 2461900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Undisclosed Prior Statement of R.H.

Text: [¶ 43] The facts underlying this issue were recited in the previous issue. During the trial, a transcriptionist discovered an audiotape of an interview with R.H. on the disk of a videotape of an interview with R.H. Upon learning of the existence of the audiotape, the prosecutors immediately provided a copy to defense counsel. Realizing the late disclosure, the State conceded that it would not attempt to enter the audiotape into evidence, but it also assured the Court that [R.H.] did not make any statement in that first audio tape that she did not repeat in the videotape, so there was no new information. The appellant's motion that R.H. not be allowed to testify, as a sanction for this late disclosure was taken under advisement, and later denied. In denying the motion, the district court noted that it appears as if there's nothing really different on the audiotape, but allowed the appellant to utilize it for cross-examination of R.H. [¶ 44] The appellant's new trial motion contained the following complaint in regard to the late disclosure of the audiotaped interview: 7. Statement of [R.H.]: After four days of trial, the defense was notified that a statement of [R.H.] was found that had not been turned over to the defense. Again, this inexcusable attention [sic] to detail concerning Brady material constitutes grounds for a new trial if for no other reason than the State failed to comply with Brady and its progeny. This has been a subject of argument during the entire duration of trial preparation. This callous approach should not be regarded as mere inconvenience or harmless error as the State's conduct rises to the level of constitutional violations. The defendant's right to a fair trial was violated. [¶ 45] We will summarily affirm the denial of the new trial motion on this ground because the appellant has utterly failed, either before the district court, or in his appellate brief, to substantiate his allegations of a Brady violation. He cites no case law or other authority in the section of his brief dedicated to this issue. He presents a conclusion The trial court abused its discretion in [allowing R.H. to testify], given the fact that [R.H.'s] testimony placed [the appellant] at the scene of the homicide, yet was inconsistent in many respects.  (Emphasis added.) There is nothing in the brief, however, revealing what these inconsistencies may have been, or how the late disclosure of the audiotaped interview affected his ability at trial to deal with those inconsistencies. He does not even make an effort to identify what was exculpatory in the audiotaped interview.