‘ “Tardy disclosure of Brady material is generally not reversible error unless the defendant can show that he was denied a fair trial.” ... A delay in disclosing Brady material requires reversal only if the “lateness of the disclosure so prejudiced appellant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial.” ’
How later courts described this case
- ‘ “Tardy disclosure of Brady material is generally not reversible error unless the defendant can show that he was denied a fair trial.” ... A delay in disclosing Brady material requires reversal only if the “lateness of the disclosure so prejudiced appellant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial.” ’
- in holding that it was not improper vouching for prosecutor to comment, "I'll submit to you, [the state's main witness] is telling you the truth," the court observed that the credibility of a witness is a legitimate subject of discussion, and the prosecutor's remark was grounded on some testimony given by the witness himself
- Montiel, J., dissenting "from the majority's holding . . . that the appellant's absence from a pretrial hearing and a number of motion hearings [was] not reversible error"
- capital defendant's absence from pre-trial motion hearing harmless error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I dissent from the majority's holding in part VII of the opinion that the appellant's absence from a pretrial hearing and a number of motion hearings is not reversible error. I adhere to my dissent in Harris v. State , 632 So.2d 503
(Ala.Crim.App. 1992).