Opinion ID: 1611682
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the suppressed evidence favorable to Belisle?

Text: Belisle contends that the proffer is a `script' on which the State's key witness relied at trial [that] is unambiguously favorable to the defense. Petition at 9. The State argues however, that the proffer was irrelevant and not favorable to the defense because the evidence contained in a null and void profferdetailing an agreement that was no longer in existencewas not relevant to Annette's credibility and, thus, not favorable to the defense. [I]mpeachment evidence is favorable evidence. Jefferson v. State, 645 So.2d 313, 316 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). See also United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (Impeachment evidence ..., as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule.). We have further held that exculpatory evidence, regardless of its trustworthiness or admissibility, should be disclosed.... Ex parte Brown, 548 So.2d 993, 994 (Ala.1989). The proffer begins by stating that the truth is as follows, and then outlines expected testimony, emphasizes specific passages, threatens to reinstate capital charges if Annette does not cooperate fully, and lastly notes that [i]t shall be unacceptable and a violation of the terms of this agreement for Annette Belisle to `forget' or `fail to recall' testimony previously provided and/or mentioned specifically herein. Even if the original plea agreement and accompanying proffer were no longer in effect, the proffer certainly casts doubt on Annette's testimony and the State's handling of the case. Therefore, regardless of its admissibility, the proffer is impeachment material favorable to Belisle.