Court Opinion

ID: 9582083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:22:15.746254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:26.163760
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
I join Justice Hall’s dissent for the reasons he has expressed and for the further reason that here the state’s hearsay objection has the legal effect of suppressing evidence favorable to the defense on which the state relied in another case. This violates the principle set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d *277215) (1963), just as much as if the state had concealed from this defendant the existence of Pasby’s mitigating testimony. Brady serves only a very limited purpose if the state can exclude from the trial material which Brady would require the state to make known to the defendant, and on which the state relies in securing the conviction of a codefendant.