Opinion ID: 1768472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Undisclosed Deals

Text: Defendant claims that the prosecution did not disclose deals made for the testimony of John Thomas and Danny Spurling. Prosecutors must disclose, even without a request, exculpatory evidence, including evidence that may be used to impeach a government witness. State v. Robinson, 835 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Mo. banc 1992). See also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Rule 25.03. Dealsincluding plea agreements negotiated with witnessesmust be disclosed. Hutchison v. State, 59 S.W.3d 494, 496 (Mo. banc 2001).
On June 8, 1995, Thomas was charged with selling drugs, a class B felony. On February 27, 1998, the associate circuit judge wrote this docket entry: Δ appears with counsel, Mr. Gary Allen, and waives preliminary hearing in open court. State appears by Ms. Chris Stallings, and state advises delay in prosecution due to Δ's participation as witness in companion proceedings. Δ band [ sic ] over to Div. I and to appear at 9 a.m., March 17, 1998, and file to be certified to said division. On March 17, Thomas waived arraignment and pled not guilty, with the case continued to April 21. On March 31, he testified in the trial of this case. On April 21, Thomas pled guilty to attempting to sell drugs, a class C felony. On September 10, 1998, the court suspended imposition of sentence, placing him on five years of supervised probation. Defendant's trial counsel knew of Thomas's pending charge, questioning him about it at trial (as recorded on six transcript pages). Thomas denied making a deal, and blamed the local prosecutor for the delay. [2] Defendant contends that the circumstantial evidence shows that Thomas had an undisclosed deal to testify against him. In Commonwealth v. Strong, an exchange of letters showed pre-trial plea negotiations. 563 Pa. 455, 761 A.2d 1167, 1170, 1174 (2000). The witness offered to plead guilty for a 36-month sentence. Id. at 1174. The state and the witness never reached an ironclad agreement. Id. But, after testifying, the witness received a 40-month sentence for murder and kidnapping. Id. Based on all the facts, the court found an understanding, which should have been disclosed. Id. at 1174-75. Here, defendant did not prove any understanding between any prosecutor and Thomas. The motion court did not clearly err.
When defendant was charged with the two murders, Spurling had eight pending criminal charges in Missouri. Two of the charges were dismissed in 1996, nineteen months before Spurling testified in defendant's trial. Fourteen months before testifying, he negotiated a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two charges. Twelve months before testifying, the other four charges were dismissed. No charges were pending when Spurling testified against defendant. Defendant argues, in effect, that the pleas and dismissals can be explained only as an undisclosed deal. Defendant must, however, do more than speculate. He must show that the plea was more than the common method to resolve charges. He must demonstrate why the other charges were dismissed. Moreover, Spurling testified that he did not have a deal. Given the paucity of supporting evidence, the motion court did not clearly err in concluding there was no deal. Alternatively, defendant claims that the dismissals should have been disclosed. This claim also fails. The dismissals resolved the charges, removing Spurling's incentive to lie in order to obtain favorable treatment. State v. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d 165, 180 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 953, 118 S.Ct. 376, 139 L.Ed.2d 293 (1997). Absent evidence of an understanding, the prosecutor was not required to disclose the dismissals.