Court Opinion

ID: 9783884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:19:33.883733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:40.419984
License: Public Domain

MARY R. RUSSELL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Because Griffin failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the State suppressed evidence in violation of due process, as outlined in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), I would not grant ha-beas corpus relief.
*80A writ of habeas corpus is available to a person who is restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the federal or state government. State ex rel. Engel v. Dormire, 304 S.W.3d 120, 125 (Mo. banc 2010). As the habeas corpus petitioner, Griffin bears the burden to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief under Brady. See id.
Brady held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. To establish a Brady violation, the petitioner must prove the following: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the petitioner, in that it is either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the State suppressed evidence; and (3) the petitioner was prejudiced. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); see also Engel, 304 S.W.3d at 126. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, Griffin failed to establish that the Brady violation occurred because he failed to prove the first prong.
The evidence at issue is a sharpened screwdriver seized from another inmate, Jeffrey Smith, shortly after the murder. Griffin claims that Smith’s sharpened screwdriver is exculpatory evidence. It had a 3%-ineh yellow handle and a 5}4-inch metal portion that was sharpened to a point. Evidence is exculpatory if it is favorable to the accused. Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116, 141 (Mo. banc 2005). The sharpened screwdriver is not favorable to Griffin.
The medical examiner testified that the victim’s fatal wound was caused by a “knife-like instrument with sharp edges.” The size of the victim’s fatal wound was ¾ of an inch wide and 5½ to 6 inches deep, piercing the victim’s heart and lung. At trial, the State entered into evidence a homemade knife that was found 20 feet from the crime scene. That knife was 13 inches long and ¾ of an inch wide. The knife tested positive for blood, and human proteins were found on it. In contrast, the sharpened screwdriver was clean.
The sharpened screwdriver would not be exculpatory to Griffin. According to the medical examiner’s testimony, the 554-inch metal portion of the sharpened screwdriver could not have created the victim’s wound, which was 5½ to 6 inches deep.1 Further, the screwdriver was sharpened to a point, or a “sticker,” and was not a “knife-like instrument with sharp edges.”
Griffin’s intent is to use the sharpened screwdriver to suggest that Smith committed the murder. To present an alternate perpetrator theory, there must be a direct connection between the alternate perpetrator and the crime charged. See State v. Bowman, 337 S.W.3d 679, 687 (Mo. banc 2011). Griffin presents no direct connection between Smith and the murder. Although Smith’s possession of the sharpened screwdriver indicates that he may have had the means to murder the victim, the medical examiner’s testimony contradicts that possibility. The evidence of the sharpened screwdriver does not establish that Smith was at the scene of the crime, nor does it remove Griffin from the scene of the crime. As the sharpened screwdriver does not provide a direct connection between Smith and the murder, it would not be admissible at trial. See State v. Butler, 951 S.W.2d 600, 606 (Mo. banc *811997). And evidence that is inadmissible at trial cannot be used to establish that the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady. See Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 8, 116 S.Ct. 7, 133 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995).
Because the sharpened screwdriver is not consistent with the victim’s wound, it does not establish a direct connection between Smith and the murder. This evidence is not favorable to Griffin in that it is not exculpatory or impeaching. Failing to meet the first prong to prove a Brady violation, Griffin has not met his burden as a habeas corpus petitioner.2
Accordingly, I would not grant habeas corpus relief.

. In addition to his fatal wound, the victim also suffered a cut to his left thigh, in the form of a "Y." Griffin argues that the Y-shaped wound could have been caused by the sharpened screwdriver. Whether the sharpened screwdriver could have caused the Y-shaped wound to the thigh is irrelevant because it was not the fatal wound. The medical examiner’s testimony did not support Griffin's argument.

. Griffin also failed in proving the second prong of the Brady violation test as he did not show that the State suppressed the evidence of the sharpened screwdriver. Griffin alleges that five years after the trial, the information pertaining to the sharpened screwdriver was not found in the defense file. Prior to trial, the Department of Corrections (DOC) made all records and physical evidence available to defense counsel. With the help of DOC staff, Griffin’s attorneys made copies of certain documents. If the information pertaining to the sharpened screwdriver was not found in the file, it is possible that the State provided the information, but defense counsel failed to copy it.
Other than the inference of suppression by the State, Griffin presented no direct evidence indicating that the State suppressed the information pertaining to the sharpened screwdriver. This mere inference is unpersuasive to establish that the State suppressed evidence in violation of Brady.