finding no Brady violation where State withheld from defendant inconclusive DNA report
How later courts described this case
- finding no Brady violation where State withheld from defendant inconclusive DNA report
- "[evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome”
- discussing the failure of the State to disclose DNA testing it had conducted
- inconclusive DNA test not material
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
In deflecting the appellant’s argument that he was entitled to an instruction on *388 the State’s burden to disprove his exculpatory statement the majority states, “We do not find [the] statement to be such that would have acquitted him if believed, but rather a contention of his innocence.” I can not agree.
Appellant told the police that when he and Adams drove up to the home which was to be broken into he gave Adams his socks and sweatshirt and waited, intoxicated, outside while Adams went in. He further stated Adams had blood on him when Adams returned to the truck. This statement fits squarely into the definition of exculpatory statement set forth in Knott v. State, 432 P.2d 128 (Okl.Cr.1967). It is tangible; it is affirmative; it expresses a factual matter capable of specific disproof; and it is not merely a recitation of innocence embroidered in a plea of not guilty. Id. at 130 .
I am greatly disturbed that so many times trial counsel drops the ball when the trial turns to the critical stage of instructing the jury. Unfortunately the trial court often gets little assistance on this matter, only to have errors routinely asserted on appeal. In this case, appellate counsel urges the error is fundamental for it deprived the appellant of his defense.
While the trial court could have, and perhaps should have given the standard instruction covering this matter, Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction-Criminal # 816, the failure to do so did not strip the defendant of his defense. Within the instructions as a whole the jury was told it must weigh conflicting evidence and the State must prove each element of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Counsel is well aware, no doubt, that error which has not been preserved by trial counsel must be fundamental to warrant reversal. Fundamental error goes to the foundation of the case, to the determination of the elements of the crime or the range of punishment. Given the full set of instructions used in this case, the error, while real, is not fundamental.