Court Opinion

ID: 9588045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:29:13.607943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:57.350480
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing .
On motion for rehearing, appellant’s counsel, whose representation of appellant has been limited to this appeal, ably urges reconsideration of the decision in this case in light of his contention that the chief prosecution witness should be viewed as a prosecutor. He argues that adopting his view would demand a finding that the "prosecutor” committed peijury or, at least, withheld exculpatory information. Even if the witness be deemed a prosecutor, we cannot agree that the result would be changed.
The record shows that, although the witness initially denied having made a report, he intended the denial to mean that he had not prepared a formal routine report. Rather, he testified, he had responded to an inquiry from a higher level of the Department of Natural Resources. Appellant has produced nothing to show that the witness’ answer was clearly erroneous, nor that the answer amounted to deliberate peijury.
The claim that the prosecutor withheld information from the defense is equally unavailing. The evidence would have served to impeach the chief prosecution witness’credibility. However, under the standard advanced as controlling by appellant, established by the U. S. Supreme Court in United States v. Agurs, 44 L.W. 5013 (June 24,1976), the evidence would still not require a new trial. In that case, the court held that not every instance of prosecutorial withholding of evidence would warrant a new trial. The test is one of materiality.
"The proper standard of materiality must reflect our overriding concern with the justice of thefindingof guilt... [i]f the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist, constitutional error has been *715committed. This means that the omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record. If there is no reasonable doubt about guilt whether or not the additional evidence is considered, there is no justification for a new trial.” United States v. Agurs, supra, p. 5017.
Considering the record as a whole, including the allegedly exculpatory evidence, there is still no reasonable doubt of guilt. In fact, the "omitted evidence,” taken as a whole, tends to strengthen rather than weaken the prosecution’s case.

Motion for rehearing denied.