Opinion ID: 1840962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: discovery statute violation

Text: ¶ 24. However, Ruiz is not completely dispositive of the case before us, because unlike the defendant in Ruiz, Harris made a statutory demand for exculpatory evidence under § 971.23(1), which requires the prosecutor to disclose certain materials to the defendant within a reasonable time before trial. As will be discussed further below, a defendant making a statutory discovery demand may be entitled to material exculpatory impeachment evidence before he enters into a plea bargain if the plea bargain is entered into within the time frame when the prosecutor would have been statutorily required to disclose the information. [12-15] ¶ 25. When a defendant seeks a plea withdrawal on non-constitutional grounds, he may withdraw his guilty plea after demonstrating that a withdrawal is necessary to avoid a manifest injustice. Hatcher, 83 Wis. 2d at 564. When proceeding on this theory, the defendant has the burden of proving grounds for withdrawal of his guilty plea by clear and convincing evidence. Id. The fact that the defendant has waived certain defenses by entering into a guilty plea is not dispositive: `The question on a motion to withdraw a plea is not whether the accused has waived his rights but whether he should be relieved from such a waiver.' Id. at 565 (quoting Brisk v. State, 44 Wis. 2d 584, 588, 172 N.W.2d 199 (1969)). Harris argues he is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea as a result of the State's violation of the discovery statute. Determining whether the court of appeals correctly concluded that the State violated its discovery obligations requires the interpretation and application of the discovery statute to a given set of facts and presents a question of law subject to independent appellate review. DeLao, 252 Wis. 2d 289, ¶ 14. ¶ 26. Harris argues that the State violated § 971.23(1)(h). [16] This section provides: (1) What a district attorney must disclose to a defendant. Upon demand, the district attorney shall, within a reasonable time before trial, disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney and permit the defendant or his or her attorney to inspect and copy or photograph all of the following materials and information, if it within the possession, custody or control of the state: . . . . (h) Any exculpatory evidence. Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(h) (emphasis added). [16] ¶ 27. The parties dispute whether the phrase any exculpatory evidence merely codifies the constitutional requirements of Brady, or whether the phrase requires the State to disclose a broader set of information to the defendant. However, both parties agree that at a minimum, § 971.23(1)(h) requires that a prosecutor disclose the type of information required under Brady. See Sturgeon, 231 Wis. 2d at 497 n.4. In other words § 971.23(1)(h) requires, at a minimum, that the prosecutor disclose evidence that is favorable to the accused if nondisclosure of the evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the judicial proceeding. ¶ 28. Harris asserts that the undisclosed evidence was favorable to the accused because it was directly relevant to the credibility of B.M.M., as she could have projected her grandfather's assault onto him. Harris notes that the alleged assaults by her grandfather occurred shortly before Harris is alleged to have assaulted B.M.M., and B.M.M. did not report the assaults by her grandfather until after she had reported being assaulted by Harris. Harris argues this evidence would have created an inference that he was not guilty. Also, Harris claims that the undisclosed allegation was relevant to the credibility and reliability of any expert witness the State would have called because it established a previous source for B.M.M.'s sexual knowledge and reactive behaviors. According to Harris, because the evidence related to the credibility of the State's most influential witnesses, it was material, and therefore subject to disclosure. The State primarily argues that the undisclosed information is not material because it would not have been admissible, as it does not meet the Pulizzano exception to the rape shield law. ¶ 29. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that [w]hen the `reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,' nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within [the Brady ] rule. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154 (quoting Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959)). The Court has stated that [o]ur cases make clear that Brady's disclosure requirements extend to materials that, whatever their other characteristics, may be used to impeach a witness. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 282 n.21. ¶ 30. We agree with Harris that here, the undisclosed information is favorable to the accused because it casts doubt on the credibility of the State's primary witnesses and may have supported an inference that B.M.M. was projecting her grandfather's assaults onto Harris. The United States Supreme Court has noted that there are situations in which evidence is obviously of such substantial value to the defense that elementary fairness requires it to be disclosed . . . . Agurs, 427 U.S. at 110. Here, the undisclosed information is not directly exculpatory in the sense that DNA evidence might be because the fact that B.M.M. had alleged being previously sexually assaulted by her grandfather does not, in and of itself, tend to negate Harris's guilt regarding the separate assault that B.M.M. alleged he committed. However, the evidence here constitutes impeachment information that could be used to challenge the credibility of witnesses whose credibility would have been determinative of Harris's guilt. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. Thus, the undisclosed information constitutes exculpatory impeachment evidence because it is relevant to B.M.M.'s credibility and that of any expert the State may have called to provide evidence under State v. Jensen, 147 Wis. 2d 240, 432 N.W.2d 913 (1988), as it may have provided an alternate source for B.M.M.'s sexual knowledge and may have created the inference that B.M.M. projected the assaults perpetrated by her grandfather onto Harris. Because this evidence could have undermined the credibility of the State's most influential witnesses, this is one of those situations in which fundamental fairness dictates that the evidence should have been disclosed. [17] ¶ 31. We also disagree with the State's argument that this evidence is not material because we determine that the State's nondisclosure of this evidence sufficiently undermines our confidence in the outcome of Harris's criminal proceeding. While the State argues at length that the undisclosed evidence is not material because it does not meet the Pulizzano test, we find this argument to be unpersuasive because the State never afforded Harris the opportunity to bring a Pulizzano motion in the first place. We need not determine whether the five factor Pulizzano test would have been met in this case because even if the test would have been met, the circuit court would still have been obligated to balance Harris's right to present the evidence against the interest of the State in excluding it. See State v. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, ¶ 20, 250 Wis. 2d 466, 640 N.W.2d 112; Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d at 653-54. By failing to disclose B.M.M.'s prior allegation, the State denied Harris the opportunity to further investigate B.M.M.'s allegations and bring a Pulizzano motion. As the resolution of any Pulizzano motion would have required the circuit court to balance the competing interests involved, the prosecutor here should have disclosed the evidence and let the circuit court determine its admissibility. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, [b]ecause we are dealing with an inevitably imprecise standard, and because the significance of an item of evidence can seldom be predicted accurately until the entire record is complete, the prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 108. Further, Wisconsin courts have recognized that [i]mpeachment evidence casting doubt on a witness's credibility is material and subject to disclosure. DelReal, 225 Wis. 2d at 571. See also Tucker v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 630, 641, 267 N.W.2d 630 (1978); Loveday v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 503, 516, 247 N.W.2d 116 (1976). ¶ 32. The State's argument is also contrary to the rationale utilized by the court of appeals in DelReal. In DelReal, the court of appeals determined that the State failed to disclose Brady evidence when the State failed to inform the defendant that it had performed gunshot residue swabbing on the defendant's hands prior to trial. DelReal, 225 Wis. 2d at 571. A postconviction investigation revealed that while the State had performed the swabbing, it had not tested the results. Id. at 569. At the behest of the defendant, the tests were performed and the results came back negative. Id. In addressing whether this evidence was relevant and material, the court of appeals reasoned: [T]he State failed to turn over evidence of an exculpatory nature; i.e., the State failed to disclose that swabbing had in fact been performed, which would have provided DelReal the opportunity to have the swabs tested leading to a negative test result. This was relevant, exculpatory evidence because the negative test result would have some weight and its tendency could have supplied a favorable inference of DelReal's innocence to the jury. Id. at 571 (emphasis added). The court further noted that this evidence was relevant for impeachment purposes because it could have been used to attack the credibility of a police detective who testified that swabbing had not been performed. Id. at 573, 576. The court held that [i]n the interest of securing a fair trial, DelReal was entitled to challenge the reliability of the police investigation and to challenge the credibility of Gomez. Id. at 575. Under the rationale set forth by the State in the present case, the defendant in DelReal would not have been entitled to the evidence that gunshot residue swabbing had been performed because the results had not been tested prior to trial. ¶ 33. In the interests of a fair proceeding, Harris was entitled to the opportunity to bring a Pulizzano motion to challenge the reliability of the State's expert witness and challenge the credibility of the victim. As the State failed to disclose B.M.M.'s allegation regarding her grandfather, Harris was never given the opportunity to make use of this exculpatory impeachment evidence. By failing to disclose this evidence, the State denied him a fair judicial proceeding. ¶ 34. We recognize that in the constitutional context, the Brady requirement of materiality is dependent upon whether the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial and that no trial took place here. However, as the Supreme Court stated when discussing how a reviewing court should evaluate a prosecutor's pretrial decision to not disclose evidence: The reviewing court should assess the possibility that such [prejudicial] effect might have occurred in light of the totality of the circumstances and with an awareness of the difficulty of reconstructing in a post-trial proceeding the course that the defense and the trial would have taken had the defense not been misled by the prosecutor's incomplete response. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 683. The State's argument requires us to reconstruct how a hypothetical trial would have proceeded and speculate as to how the jury would have viewed the evidence. We decline to do so. The circuit court accepted Harris's offer of proof that he pled guilty only because of the relative strength of the State's case and would not have pled guilty had this evidence been disclosed. As Harris demonstrated that he would not have pled guilty but for the nondisclosure of this favorable evidence, we are satisfied that the nondisclosure of the evidence sufficiently undermines our confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. As such, the State was under a statutory obligation to disclose B.M.M.'s allegation after Harris made a statutory demand for any exculpatory evidence. [18] ¶ 35. The next issue we must address is one of timing. The statute requires the State to disclose certain materials demanded by the defendant within a reasonable time before trial. Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1). The statute itself does not define what is a reasonable time before trial, and there are no cases that establish a per se rule for what is reasonable under the statute. However, we note that immediate disclosure is not required under Brady. See Coppa, 267 F.3d at 143-44 (criticizing the district court for ordering prosecution to disclose all impeachment evidence immediately upon demand). What Brady does require is that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defendant in time for its effective use. Id. at 144. See also United States v. O'Hara, 301 F.3d 563, 569 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding no Brady violation where the defendant had sufficient time to make use of the material disclosed); United States v. Grintjes, 237 F.3d 876, 880 (7th Cir. 2001) ( Brady applies only where the allegedly exculpatory evidence was not disclosed in time for the defendant to make use of it.). ¶ 36. In the constitutional context, this timing requirement dovetails with the Brady's materiality requirement. Coppa, 267 F.3d at 142 (noting that the prosecutor must disclose `material'. . . exculpatory and impeachment information no later than the point at which a reasonable probability will exist that the outcome would have been different if an earlier disclosure had been made). Therefore, [ Brady ] demands only that the disclosure not come `so late as to prevent the defendant from receiving a fair trial.' Grintjes, 237 F.3d at 880 (quoting United States v. Adams, 834 F.2d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1346 (7th Cir. 1979))). [17] [19] ¶ 37. However, Brady's timing requirements cannot be completely incorporated into § 971.23(1) because the statute requires that evidence be disclosed within a reasonable time before trial. Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(emphasis added). Brady, on the other hand, does not require pretrial disclosure. Grintjes, 237 F.3d at 880 (citing United States v. Sweeney, 688 F.2d 1131, 1141 (7th Cir. 1982)). See also United States v. Reyes, 270 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (7th Cir. 2001)(same). Thus, in regard to the timing of disclosure, § 971.23 is broader than the constitutional requirements of Brady. While we cannot apply the Brady standard for determining when the timing requirement is satisfied, in light of statutory language that clearly requires pretrial disclosures, we do find Brady's initial formulation of the timing requirement to be useful. We hold that in order for evidence to be disclosed within a reasonable time before trial for purposes of § 971.23, it must be disclosed within a sufficient time for its effective use. Were it otherwise, the State could withhold all Brady evidence until the day of trial in the hope that the defendant would plead guilty under the false assumption that no such evidence existed. [20] ¶ 38. The jury trial in Harris's case was set for August 6-8, 2001. He made his discovery demand on May 30, 2001, and pled guilty pursuant to the plea agreement on July 25, 2001. Thus, at the time Harris entered into his plea agreement, there were approximately two weeks until trial. As discussed previously, had B.M.M.'s allegations against her grandfather been disclosed, Harris would have brought a Pulizzano motion in order to admit the evidence. Also, because this evidence would have been used not only to challenge B.M.M.'s credibility, but also to challenge the credibility and reliability of the State's Jensen experts, Harris would have been required to secure experts of his own. Given the nature of Pulizzano evidence and the fact that the State was planning to call at least one expert witness to provide Jensen -type evidence, the State should have disclosed the suppressed evidence by at least this point in the proceedings in order for Harris to be able to effectively use it. We are satisfied that by the time Harris pled guilty, the State should have disclosed B.M.M.'s statement in order to meet the statutory requirement that such evidence be disclosed within a reasonable time before trial. Thus, although we concluded under Ruiz that the specific type of evidence here was not required to be disclosed prior to Harris's plea bargain as a constitutional matter, we nonetheless conclude that the State was under a statutory obligation to disclose this evidence because § 971.23 requires Brady evidence to be disclosed within a reasonable time before trial. [21] ¶ 39. Finally, we address whether the State's violation of § 971.23(1)(h) entitles Harris to withdraw his plea. In Hatcher, this court delineated four circumstances in which a criminal defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea in order to avoid a manifest injustice: 1) if he was denied effective assistance of counsel; 2) if the plea was not entered or ratified by the defendant or his agent; 3) if the plea was involuntary because it was entered without knowledge of the charge or potential sentence; or 4) if the State breached the plea agreement. Hatcher, 83 Wis. 2d at 564. However, we noted that this list was not exhaustive and stated that a defendant may be able to withdraw a plea on the grounds of manifest injustice in similar circumstances. Id. We believe that the circumstances here are sufficiently similar to those delineated in Hatcher. The common thread among the situations listed in Hatcher is that the defendant was deprived of a right guaranteed by the constitution, statute, or rule, and that deprivation induced the defendant to plead guilty. Here, the State violated the discovery statute by withholding material exculpatory impeachment evidence that, if admitted, would have raised serious questions about the credibility of the victim and the reliability of the State's expert witnesses. Aside from Harris's own version of events, this was the only existing material evidence that was favorable to the accused. The circuit court accepted Harris's postconviction offer of proof that he would not have pled guilty had this evidence been available to him. This court has previously determined that a prosecutor's violation of discovery statute, if prejudicial to the defendant, entitles the defendant to a new trial. DeLao, 252 Wis. 2d 289, ¶ 59. Here, the State's violation of the discovery statute prevented Harris from ever having a trial. Harris has demonstrated the State's discovery statute violation resulted in `a serious flaw in the fundamental integrity of the plea.' State v. Thomas, 2000 WI 13, ¶ 16, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836 (quoting State v. Nawrocke, 193 Wis. 2d 373, 379, 534 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1995)). Under these circumstances, we believe it necessary to allow Harris to withdraw his guilty plea in order to prevent a manifest injustice.