Christopher Conley Tapp v. State
Background
- Christopher Tapp was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and rape and sentenced to life with minimum confinement and concurrent terms; convictions were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Tapp pursued multiple post-conviction petitions and a DNA-request petition; prior appeals resulted in mixed rulings and several summary dismissals.
- In 2012 Tapp obtained affidavits from a potential witness who described a suspicious man (blood on shirt, tape on wrist, scratches) visiting his home the night of the murder and later telling a plainclothes detective about it.
- Tapp alleged the State knew of this witness (and the witness’s former spouse) and suppressed exculpatory information in violation of Brady, arguing the witness could identify another suspect and bolster Tapp’s defense.
- The district court granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal of Tapp’s second successive post-conviction petition; Tapp appealed claiming (1) his petition stated a prima facie Brady claim and (2) the court relied on trial-theory materials not in the post-conviction record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition states a prima facie Brady claim | Tapp: the witness’s affidavit is exculpatory/impeaching; State suppressed the witness’s identity; reasonable probability of a different result if disclosed | State: affidavit is speculative, witness didn’t see the crime, no evidence State knew of or suppressed the witness, testimony would not likely change outcome | Court: Dismissal affirmed — petition fails Brady threshold because allegations are speculative and do not show the witness’s testimony would be exculpatory or that State knew/suppressed it |
| Whether petition was timely filed | Tapp: filed within a reasonable time after discovering the affidavits in 2012 | State: (implicit) successive petition rules apply | Court: Petition was timely relative to discovery, so timeliness not dispositive |
| Whether district court improperly relied on trial record not in post-conviction file | Tapp: court cited trial theories outside the post-conviction record, which is error | State: lower court’s reliance immaterial if outcome correct on record | Court: District court erred to the extent it relied on trial theories, but error was harmless because the ruling is supported by the post-conviction record |
| Whether evidentiary hearing required | Tapp: affidavit creates genuine disputed facts requiring a hearing | State: affidavit insufficient to create material factual dispute | Court: No hearing required; summary dismissal proper because affidavit does not establish prima facie claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (elements for successful Brady claim: favorable evidence, suppression by State, and materiality/reasonable probability of a different result)
- Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789 (2004) (post-conviction claims with supporting affidavits may preclude summary dismissal if facts, taken as true, entitle petitioner to relief)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (1994) (petitioner's conclusory allegations unsupported by admissible evidence are insufficient to avoid summary dismissal)
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (2009) (standards of review for summary dismissal of post-conviction petitions)