Opinion ID: 2328199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Ruling with Respect to Uncharged Crimes and Characterization of Applicant's Claim

Text: Mr. DeCiantis' other two appellate contentions concern the hearing justice's ruling as to whether the prosecution was required to disclose Mr. Ferle's uncharged crimes, as well as the hearing justice's characterization of applicant's claim as being that the state wrongfully failed to disclose only one of William Ferle's charged crimes. Since both of these contentions necessarily relate to what constituted the universe of allegedly improperly withheld evidence, we shall address both contentions by conducting the requisite de novo review with respect to whether applicant has satisfied his burden with respect to the issue of materiality. We begin our analysis by clarifying that, when the hearing justice stated that applicant was not entitled to the disclosure of Mr. Ferle's uncharged acts, that statement was inconsistent with our well-settled case law. It is true that the plain language of Rule 16 requires in pertinent part only that the prosecution provide a defendant with all reports or records of prior convictions of those whom the prosecution expects to call as witnesses. Significantly, however, the mandates of Brady and of our case law interpreting Brady and embroidering upon its rationale require that the prosecution provide the defendant with other information favorable to the accused, including evidence which could be used to impeach the testimony of a witness. McManus, 941 A.2d at 229-30; Briggs, 886 A.2d at 754-55; Chalk, 816 A.2d at 418. It is clear to this Court that any uncharged alleged crimes of Mr. Ferle should have been disclosed to defense counselbecause counsel might have used them to further impeach Mr. Ferle's testimony. The numerous uncharged crimes for which Mr. Ferle might have faced prosecution could have been used to cast further doubt upon the testimony of that witnessby suggesting to the jury that his testimony was motivated more by the hope of obtaining a favorable disposition with respect to his alleged crimes than by the altruistic desire to provide truthful testimony about Mr. DeCiantis' alleged crime. Having determined that Mr. Ferle's uncharged crimes should have been disclosed to Mr. DeCiantis, we have next proceeded to a de novo determination of whether or not Mr. DeCiantis has satisfied his burden of showing that the nondisclosed evidence was materialmeaning that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.  See Chalk, 816 A.2d at 419 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, based upon our review of the evidence presented at trial, with particular focus on the testimony of Mr. Ferle, as well as the evidence and testimony presented by applicant during the hearing on his application for postconviction relief, we hold that Mr. DeCiantis has not made the requisite showing of materiality. See id. On cross-examination during the murder trial, Mr. Ferle was confronted with his prior conviction of conspiracy and bank fraud, as well as pending charges of obtaining money under false pretenses, robbery, arson, and even murder. Mr. Ferle was also questioned as to (1) whether or not he was providing testimony [o]ut of the goodness of [his] heart; (2) what promises or inducements he had been given in exchange for his testimony; and (3) what he would like to happen as a result of his providing testimony that supported the prosecution's case. Mr. Ferle was questioned repeatedly with respect to what he hoped to obtain in return for his testimony. Finally, he was also questioned explicitly as to whether or not he was receiving monetary support from the state or from the police. It is clear to us that it could not have escaped the attention of the jury that Mr. Ferle had an extensive criminal background, that he had decided to testify against members of organized crime (and that he was recently such a member himself), and that he hoped to receive protection and avoid incarceration in exchange for his testimony. We are unpersuaded that evidence of additional criminal activity on the part of Mr. Ferle would have materially changed the jury's evaluation of him as a witness or would have changed the ultimate result of the proceeding. For these reasons, Mr. DeCiantis has not met his burden. See Chalk, 816 A.2d at 419.