Opinion ID: 1592504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure of prosecutor to reveal information.

Text: Defendant next asserts that the prosecutor failed to disclose certain exculpatory evidence to defense counsel. At trial, Radcliffe testified as follows:  Q. Is there any doubt, Mr. Radcliffe, in your mind, any doubt whatsoever, that Mr. Simos who is sitting here next to me was the same person, the same identical person that walked in front of your car that night?  A. He was the same person that walked in front of my car that night.  Q. And there is no doubt whatsoever in your mind?  A. No doubt in my mind.  Q. And did you have any doubt at any time that he may not have been the same person?  A. No. (Emphasis supplied.) After the trial, the defense learned that a policeman had reported on the day of the alleged burglary that both Mr. and Mrs. Radcliffe stated that they did not feel that it would be worthwhile for them to view pictures as they did not think that they would be able to positively identify the suspects. Subsequent to November 27th, the Radcliffes did view photographs and identified defendant. Defendant asserts that existence and contents of this report should have been disclosed by the prosecutor to the defense prior to or at the time of trial. It is conceded that at no time did the defense demand that this report be disclosed to the defendant. Assuming, without deciding, that the prosecutor, without demand from the defendant, [3] is required to disclose exculpatory information that is in his possession, in our opinion it is clear that the information relating to the Radcliffes' reported statement to the police was not exculpatory, nor did it demonstrate that the testimony admitted at trial was false. The statement meant that on the day of the crime the Radcliffes incorrectly believed they would be unable to identify the couple they had seen. When shown the photographs later they found that they could make an identification. At the very most the reported statement revealed an inconsistency in Mr. Radcliffe's testimony. The phrasing of the emphasized question at the trial indicates that Mr. Radcliffe was referring in his testimony to the time subsequent to the photo identification and not before he made that identification. We think it significant that the trial court on motions after verdict considered the effect of the report which was not disclosed and decided that it was not needed in view of the extensive cross-examination of the witnesses. In short, we conclude that the evidence was not exculpatory and that at most it revealed a minor inconsistency in the witness' testimony. In Ramer v. State , [4] this court rejected a similar argument relating to the failure to disclose a police report for the purpose of testing the witness' credibility. We do not think the present case involves a failure on the prosecution's part to disclose information which tended to show the absence of an element of the crime. [5] It should be noted that if the prosecution had been commenced on or after July 1, 1970, such report (the attorney general conceded on oral argument that the reported statement was to be treated identically to an actual statement), under the new criminal procedure code, would now be required to be turned over to the defense under provisions of sec. 971.24 (1), Stats., which reads: 971.24 Statement of witnesses. (1) At the trial before a witness other than the defendant testifies, written or phonographically recorded statements of the witness, if any, shall be given to the other party in the absence of the jury. For cause, the court may order the production of such statements prior to trial.