Anderson v. State, 2012 R.I. LEXIS 96

Anderson pled nolo contendere in 1981 to robbery, breaking and entering, and assault on a person over sixty, receiving a long term sentence with probation.
In 1995 a probation-violation hearing arose from alleged 1995 sexual-molestation incidents; a sidebar noted a medical exam showed no evidence of trauma and reports were not yet available.
Anderson was found to violate probation; this adjudication was upheld by our court in State v. Anderson, 705 A.2d 996 (R.I.1997) (mem.).
In 1998, after a jury trial on the underlying charges, Anderson was convicted of fellatio and acquitted of digital penetration; he received a 50-year sentence plus enhancements; this Court later affirmed in 2000.
Anderson filed first postconviction relief in 2000 (denied), with a related 2001 application; in 2005 the court again denied relief.
In 2009 Anderson filed the current postconviction relief petition alleging that June 1995 medical records were withheld in discovery and constitute Brady material; the state argued § 10-9.1-8 bars the claim and that the records would not have affected the trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutorial misconduct is barred by res judicata	Anderson says records were not available until 2006, so issue was not available earlier.	State contends the claim was available and should have been raised earlier; preclusion applies.	Barred under § 10-9.1-8; issue could have been raised earlier.
Whether failure to disclose medical records constituted a discovery violation	State withheld records and Brady material; discovery violation occurred.	State did not deliberately withhold; records were not in its possession or use.	No discovery violation; records not disclosed was not deliberate.
Whether the medical records would have been material to the trial	Records would impeach credibility and affect defense strategy.	Records were medically stale and unlikely to change the outcome, given acquittal on one count.	Records would have been of little or no value to the factfinder.

State v. Wyche, 518 A.2d 907 (R.I. 1986) (disclosure violations—deliberate withholding triggers new trial; not focused on harm.)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (materiality and prejudice analysis for nondisclosure.)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due-process requirement to disclose favorable evidence.)
Carillo v. Moran, 463 A.2d 178 (R.I. 1983) (res judicata effect in postconviction relief; same ground barred if not raised.)
Ramirez v. State, 933 A.2d 1110 (R.I. 2007) (interest of justice exception to bar on successive postconviction claims.)
Ferrell v. Wall, 971 A.2d 615 (R.I. 2009) (narrowly defines when new grounds may be raised in the interest of justice.)
DeCiantis v. State, 24 A.3d 557 (R.I. 2011) (Brady and discovery obligations in Rhode Island postconviction relief.)
State v. Adams, 481 A.2d 718 (R.I. 1984) (nondisclosure of expert materials—relevance to disclosure duties.)
Reise v. State, 913 A.2d 1052 (R.I. 2007) (newly discovered evidence standard (not met here).)