Court Opinion

ID: 9572477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:41:58.745466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:12.789874
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent, concluding the State’s failure to disclose the existence of the roll of film did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. (2d) 215 (1963); and United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. (2d) 342 (1976).
It is utterly ridiculous to contend that the defendant, David Goodson, had his picture taken inside the Highway Department while he was robbing it. Although the roll of film may inculpate someone other than the appellant in the crime, it does not exculpate him.
The failure to disclose information constitutes reversible error only if “the omission deprives the defendant of a fair trial.” Agurs, supra; State v. Gambrell, S. C., 266 S. E. *249(2d) 78 (1980). I fail to see how the omitted information creates a “reasonable doubt concerning appellant’s guilt” in this case. State v. Goodson, 273 S. C. 264, 265, 255 S. E. (2d) 679, 680 (1979). The trial judge held, and I agree, this evidence was not exculpatory. I would affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.