In Re the Personal Restraint of Stenson
276 P.3d 286
Wash.2012Background
- Stenson was death-sentenced in 1994 for murder of wife Denise Stenson and partner Frank Hoerner.
- In 2009 his counsel filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) raising a Brady claim based on undisclosed photographs and an FBI file.
- The State disclosed the photographs and FBI file in 2009, after reference hearings prompted by new information about the trial's forensic evidence.
- Judge Williams held the FBI file and photographs were favorable to Stenson and suppressed by the State, affecting impeachment opportunities and defense theory.
- The majority concluded the suppression violated Brady, showing prejudice, reversing convictions and death sentence, and remanding for a new trial.
- The dissent would deny relief, arguing the evidence was not prejudicial and the trial was supported by overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State violated Brady by withholding evidence | Stenson; Brady evidence was favorable and suppressed | Stenson; no prejudice from late disclosure | Yes, Brady violation established and prejudice shown |
| Whether the newly disclosed FBI file and photographs were prejudicial to the verdict | Favorable evidence undermines State's case | Evidence marginal; not likely to change outcome | Yes, prejudice established; new trial warranted |
| Whether procedural requirements for PRP under RCW 10.73.090(1) and 10.73.100 were satisfied | Disclosures since trial satisfied diligence and new discovery | Time limits and procedural bars still apply | Yes, petitioner satisfied procedural prerequisites |
| Whether the evidence would have changed the outcome under Kyles/Bagley materiality | Disclosed evidence could have altered jury's assessment | Trial evidence already compelling; impact minimal | Yes, reasonable probability of different outcome demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; materiality standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality; reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Bagley v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (impeachment and exculpatory evidence; materiality)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others in government)
- State v. Woods, 143 Wash.2d 561 (Wash. 2001) (capital-case reliability; due process heightened scrutiny)
- State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829 (Wash. 1991) (capital sentencing reliability; review standards)
- Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (U.S. 2012) ( Brady materiality standard reaffirmed)