Opinion ID: 2044555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State's Failure to Disclose Evidence

Text: Petitioner next claims that the prosecution failed to disclose to defense counsel Grubisch's statements that petitioner and Cogler were acting like a couple for the night and left the bar together once before closing time. Petitioner argues that the prosecution's failure to disclose this favorable and material evidence denied him due process and a fair trial and sentencing hearing in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In Brady, the United States Supreme Court required disclosure of evidence that is both favorable to the accused and `material either to guilt or to punishment.' People v. Morgan, 187 Ill.2d 500, 539, 241 Ill.Dec. 552, 719 N.E.2d 681 (1999), quoting Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1197, 10 L.Ed.2d at 218. Under Brady and its progeny, favorable evidence is material, and constitutional error results from its suppression by the government `if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' Coleman, 183 Ill.2d at 393, 233 Ill.Dec. 789, 701 N.E.2d 1063, quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481, 494 (1985). Materiality is demonstrated by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light so as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d at 393, 233 Ill.Dec. 789, 701 N.E.2d 1063, quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490, 506, (1995). Taking petitioner's allegations that the prosecution failed to disclose Grubisch's statements as true, we find this evidence lacks the requisite materiality under Brady and its progeny. As explained above, the evidence of sexual assault presented at petitioner's trial was overwhelming. See Cloutier, 156 Ill.2d at 500-06. 190 Ill.Dec. 744, 622 N.E.2d 774. We do not believe that, had the testimony contained in Grubisch's affidavit been disclosed to the defense, it is reasonably probable that the outcome of either the trial or the sentencing hearing would have been different. Nor do we believe this evidence could reasonably have put the entire case in such a different light so as to undermine the petitioner's conviction of aggravated criminal sexual assault. The evidence allegedly withheld by the State is merely cumulative of that already presented at trial, namely, that petitioner and Cogler were on friendly terms and left the bar together at closing time the night of Cogler's murder. The State committed no Brady violation.