Opinion ID: 1779869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to disclose the identity of the two grand jurors.

Text: ¶ 68. This issue involves a constitutional right and thus the standard of review is de novo. Palm v. State, 748 So.2d at 135 (Miss.1999); Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So.2d at 1204 (Miss. 1998). ¶ 69. Culp argues that his constitutional rights were violated because the State did not disclose the identity of the two allegedly interested grand jurors and that their identity would be evidence favorable to the defense and material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). He further asserts that without the tainted indictment, there would not have been a conviction, thus producing a different outcome and satisfying the Giglio test. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). ¶ 70. In Brady, the United States Supreme Court said the suppression of material evidence justifies a new trial irrespective of good faith on the part of the prosecutor. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. The requirement of materiality is of utmost importance. Materiality has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as evidence that could have a reasonable likelihood of affecting the outcome of the case. More specifically, the Court said that when the `reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,' nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, (quoting Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959)) (emphasis added). ¶ 71. Much of Culp's argument centers around his incorrect presumption that the appearance of impropriety is enough to quash a grand jury indictment. Based on his misstatement of the law, he incorrectly argues that this evidence is material. However, because the record does not show actual improper influence, the identity of the two grand jurors alleged to be interested is immaterial. ¶ 72. In a recent case, the Mississippi Court of Appeals addressed the issue of grand jurors, albeit in a different context, and came to the same conclusion we reach today. In Busick v. State, 906 So.2d 846, 860 (Miss.Ct.App.2005), the defendant sought to obtain several items of exculpatory evidence, including the identity of the temporary grand jury foreman. Busick argued that the name should have been disclosed because he believed that the foreman worked for the FBI, which was involved in the case, and thus his grand jury service was improper. The Mississippi Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's holding that, based on Southward, even if the foreman did work for the FBI, his grand jury service would not constitute grounds for quashing Busick's indictment. We agree with the Court of Appeals' rationale, and adopt its holding today. The mere fact that the foreman of the grand jury which indicted Culp was employed part time by one of the same law enforcement agencies which worked on the case, without more, was not evidence that there was an improper effect on the indictment or that any member of the grand jury acted with fraud, ill will, hatred, or malice. There was no requirement that the information about the two interested grand jurors must be given to Culp, because it was not material. Because it was not material and there was no showing of an improper effect on the indictment or grand jurors, the trial court was correct in denying Culp's motion to quash the indictment.