Opinion ID: 2328199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct

Text: On appeal, applicant contends that the hearing justice erred by applying a higher standard of `materiality'    than the standard required for the [s]tate's deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence. In order to properly address this particular appellate contention, we must engage in a two-step inferential process. First, it is clear to us that, where a nondisclosure is not deliberate, applicant would be required to make a showing of materialityand our review of applicant's brief has convinced us that he does not dispute that point. [10] Accordingly, it would appear implicit in applicant's specification of error that he is actually contending that the hearing justice erred in finding that the nondisclosure in the instant case was not deliberate. A closely related appellate contention of applicant's is that the hearing justice erred in finding that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred in his case. It is true that nowhere in his rescript decision does the hearing justice explicitly state that the failures to disclose were not deliberate. However, after reviewing the entire record, including a reading of the hearing justice's rescript decision as a whole, it is clear to us that the hearing justice did indeed make an assessment as to the deliberateness ( vel non ) issue and did conclude that there was no deliberate failure to disclose. In assessing whether prosecutorial misconduct had been committed in the instant case, the hearing justice observed that he had heard testimony regarding Prosecutor Leach's actions.  (Emphasis added.) The hearing justice stated the following with respect to that testimony: [T]he Court    found this compelling testimony supported the [s]tate's position that no prosecutorial misconduct was committed in this case.  (First emphasis added; second emphasis in original.) [11] Accordingly, it is clear to us that the hearing justice made a credibility determination, finding Mr. Leach's testimony credible; and we perceive nothing in the record to suggest that that credibility determination was clearly erroneous. See B.S. International Ltd. v. JMAM, LLC, 13 A.3d 1057, 1062 (R.I.2011) (It is self-evident that a trial justice sitting without a jury must often make credibility determinations in order to arrive at the necessary findings of fact. We accord a substantial amount of deference to those determinations   .). Since much of Mr. Leach's testimony was to the effect that he had not deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from Mr. DeCiantis or his attorney, we are satisfied that we can infer from the hearing justice's credibility determination that he did not find any deliberate nondisclosure on the part of the prosecution. In view of the clear import of the hearing justice's overall ruling, we see no need for a remand with respect to the deliberateness issue; we hold that the hearing justice did not err in applying the materiality standard to applicant's case, nor did he err in his determination that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred.