Opinion ID: 2301355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alleged Withholding of Photographs

Text: Spratt next asserts that the hearing justice erroneously denied his claim that the state improperly withheld various photographs in violation of the due process requirements set forth in Brady and Rule 16(a)(4). [6] As evidence of this alleged misconduct, Spratt points to the fact that in November 2008, in response to Spratt's discovery request during his postconviction-relief action, the state produced four sets of frontal and profile photographs taken of Sprattone set consisting of a frontal and profile photograph taken on the night he was arrested for the crime in question (December 20, 1995), as well as three sets of frontal and profile photographs of Spratt the police had in their possession from his prior arrests on unrelated charges (arrest photographs). [7] , [8] Spratt avers, therefore, that his immediate release should be granted and his sentence vacated because (1) the state improperly withheld the four sets of arrest photographs as long as it did, and because (2) the state is still withholding the five or six additional profile photographs he alleges were taken subsequent to his arrest. With both contentions, we disagree. Regarding the four sets of Spratt's arrest photographs, the hearing justice noted that they were valueless for purposes of the case at trial, because Mr. Perrin's identification of [Spratt during trial] was not based upon [the arrest] photographs. He articulated further that the four sets of arrest photographs had nothing to do with whether he could or could not identify [Spratt] in court. The hearing justice additionally found that [i]t was clear in [Mr. Perrin's] mind when he saw [Spratt] in the hallway on a chance encounter that [was]    fully briefed and argued during the course of the trial    [that Mr. Perrin] had an independent recollection of [Spratt]. He also reiterated that Mr. Perrin's identification of applicant was rock-solid. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the hearing justice's determination that Mr. Perrin's identification of Spratt was not based on any identification from a photograph, but was instead based on the chance encounter at the courthouse and on having witnessed the crime itself. This Court also considers whether the disclosure at trial of the four sets of arrest photographs would have affected the outcome of the case. Because of the abundant evidence of Spratt's guilt, we conclude that, even if the state had produced Spratt's four sets of arrest photographs during trial, such production would not have avoided his conviction. We note, as did the hearing justice, that Spratt's guilt was not predicated solely upon [the testimony of] Mr. Perrin. Indeed, the hearing justice recalled that there was other strong and overwhelming testimony indicating Spratt's culpability. For example, in addition to Mr. Perrin's testimony, the hearing justice took note of the witness testimony of Mr. Warren and Mr. Tortolani, both called by the state, who testified about Spratt's actions on the night of the murder. The hearing justice continued by finding that the accumulation of evidence against Spratt at trial was devastatingly inculpatory. Therefore, this Court concludes that even if Spratt's four sets of arrest photographs had been produced before trial, he has fallen significantly short in demonstrating any likelihood that trial counsel[,] using the undisclosed information[,] could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of one or more jurors to avoid a conviction. State v. Pona, 810 A.2d 245, 250 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Bibee, 559 A.2d 618, 621 (R.I.1989)). In regard to Spratt's theory that the police took five or six additional profile photographs of him after Mr. Perrin requested a profile photo array (above and beyond the four sets of arrest photographs already produced, as discussed supra )and that the state allegedly continues to improperly withhold these five or six additional profile photographswe discern no evidence from the record that the police ever took these five or six additional profile photographs. In sum, Spratt has not met his burden in showing that any discovery violation occurred. Even if the state had produced Spratt's arrest photographs, it is unreasonable to conclude that the jury verdict might have been different. Concerning the alleged five or six profile photographs that Spratt alleges were taken after his arrest, the hearing justice properly concluded that, other than Spratt's own speculation upon speculation, there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of these five or six additional profile photographs. Thus, this Court finds no error in the hearing justice's dismissal of Spratt's claim of discovery violations.