Gordon v. State, 18 A.3d 467

Gordon was convicted in 2002 of first-degree arson, conspiracy, and insurance fraud; the codefendant Holman cooperated with prosecutors under a formal agreement.
Holman received a cooperation agreement in 1997, pled nolo contendere to several counts, and had restitution obligations tied to the case.
Holman testified against Gordon in 2002; the State later reduced Holman’s restitution from $5,000 to $2,500.
Gordon filed a pro se postconviction-relief application on August 28, 2006, alleging nondisclosures of inducements to Holman.
A magistrate, authorized under G.L.1956 § 8-15-3.1, heard and denied the postconviction relief application; Gordon appealed.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court sua sponte decided the appeal without further briefing and affirmed the Superior Court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate had constitutional authority to preside.	Gordon argues the magistrate’s de facto judgeship violates Article X, §4.	State contends the issue is not properly raised and preserved.	Issue not preserved; no constitutional defect review.
Whether nondisclosure of the bail-inducement constitutes Brady error.	Gordon contends nondisclosure of bail inducement was material and prejudicial.	State argues any nondisclosure was inadvertent, not prejudicial, given the cooperation agreement.	Nondisclosure was inadvertent and not prejudicial; no new trial required.
Whether nondisclosure of probation violation and restitution reduction were Brady errors.	Gordon asserts these nondisclosures were inducements for Holman’s testimony.	State argues the restitution modification and probation matter were not inducements and not misconceived as prejudice.	No Brady violation; decisions upheld.

State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008) (negligent nondisclosures not per se Brady; must show prejudice)
State v. Evans, 668 A.2d 1256 (R.I. 1996) (discovery rules; liberal standard; midtrial nondisclosures may be prejudicial)
State v. Breen, 767 A.2d 50 (R.I. 2001) (raise-or-waive rule exception for novel constitutional issues not met)
State v. Wyche, 518 A.2d 907 (R.I. 1986) (deliberate withholding as basis for remedy; entitlement to remedy when withholding purposeful)