Court Opinion

ID: 9641621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:36:26.267492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:38.778094
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
As the majority opinion correctly notes, a new trial is constitutionally mandated only if the evidence undisclosed to appellant is material. The materiality of the undis*881closed evidence is determined by the reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed a different result might have been reached. United States v. Bagley, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3385, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). I further agree that the trial court made no finding on the materiality issue; Bagley had not been decided at the time the trial court issued its ruling.
I part company with the majority opinion, however, when it assumes the role of trial court and, without more, determines that the withheld evidence was, in fact, material. While the Bagley decision seems to invite appellate court speculation, I believe that we would be better served if the case were remanded to the trial court for a finding on the materiality of the withheld evidence under Bagley.
I dissent.