Opinion ID: 1960214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Additional Impeachment Evidence

Text: Lastly, defendant asserts that the prosecutor failed to disclose prior inconsistent statements made by eyewitness Emelie Konopka. Defendant claims that newly discovered police records suggest that significant portions of the witness' testimony was fabricated. Specifically, defendant questions Konopka's perception of the events surrounding the shooting because of a discrepancy as to whether she was seated in her car or standing outside the car in the parking lot when the murder occurred. Under cross-examination at trial, the witness stated: Q. Were you sitting inside your husband's car at this time, when this happened? A. In the very early stages I was sitting in his vehicle. At the time of the actual shooting, I was not in the vehicle, I was standing outside. A supplemental police report, obtained after trial, stated: Witness also wanted to make it known that her estimation of the height of the accused could be off since where she was seated is lower than the parking lot of Church's Chicken. There was no inconsistent information to disclose prior to trial, and the witness at trial explained her location at the precise time of the shooting. The information in the report does not create an inconsistency that lessens confidence in the verdict. In the same report, Konopka described what appeared to be a dark cloth hat on the assailant's head, whereas she identified the assailant at trial as wearing a ski mask. Importantly, Konopka was a witness in the civil suit brought by the victim's family against the fast food restaurant. Defense counsel was present at her deposition and gained a significant amount of discovery information. At defendant's trial, defense counsel throughout his cross-examination of Konopka referred to her civil deposition and asked her to refresh her recollection with that testimony. On redirect, the prosecutor directed Ms. Konopka to the statement that she gave to police four days after the murder: Q. And you were asked specifically about the mask and you described it as what? A. I saw his side and back and it appeared to be like maybe a snowtype of snow hat or something like that. Q. And so you were saying this four days after the crime? A. Yes. A review of the trial record, the state's discovery answers, and the police reports obtained by the defense after the trial does not reveal that there was any exculpatory or impeaching evidence, not disclosed to the defense, that would undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.