# Hayes v. State

> Supreme Court of Missouri · July 15, 1986 · 711 S.W.2d 876

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641621

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth Leon HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** July 15, 1986
- **Citations:** 711 S.W.2d 876
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robertson
- **Judges:** Blackmar, Higgins, Welliver, Rend-Len, Billings, Robertson, Donnelly
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641621

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that State had a duty to advise defendant’s counsel that plea bargain had been made with witness where prior discussion of the matter gave clear indication to the defendant’s counsel that there had been no bargain

## Opinion text

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 *881 closed 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641621. Public record. Not legal advice.