Court Opinion

ID: 9578582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:46:38.297498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:44.869069
License: Public Domain

*514Hill, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to Division 2. I am unable to say, as does the majority, that with access to a GCIC computer terminal, the district attorney (not to mention “the State”) does not have possession of the criminal records of the state’s witnesses. In my view, using a computer terminal is not conducting “a search” for evidence; it is equivalent to examining a file previously compiled. I therefore believe the time has come, with access to witnesses’ criminal records literally at its fingertips, to require the state, upon proper motion to turn over this information to the defendant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963).