984 N.E.2d 1264
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Reid and Blake were convicted of murder and Class C felony attempted robbery for a 1990 liquor-store robbery that resulted in the owner's death.
- Direct-appeal convictions were affirmed; post-conviction relief petitions were filed in 2000, with DNA testing requests in 2006 and 2007.
- A joint PCR hearing occurred in March 2012, and the post-conviction court denied relief in August 2012.
- The issues on appeal addressed due process regarding lost/destructed evidence, Brady disclosure, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no entitlement to relief under the narrow PCR framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss or destruction of evidence post-conviction | Loss of evidence violated due process | Osborne eliminates a post-conviction right to access state evidence | No due process violation; Osborne controls; evidence was at most potentially exculpatory and not prejudicial. |
| Brady disclosure of witness Maiden's history | Maiden had a prior robbery conviction; nondisclosure violated Brady | Maiden's conviction unproven; nondisclosure not prejudicial | Brady claim fails; impeachment value negligible; no prejudice under Strickler. |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling bracelet witness | Counsel erred in not calling Kanable; would affect outcome | Strategic decision; testimony weak and non-specific | No prejudice; testimony would not have changed result. |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling DNA expert | DNA expert could have aided defense | Testimony would be cumulative of stipulated results | No prejudice; cumulative testimony would not alter verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 1999) (PCR requires enumerated grounds; no super-appeal)
- Timberlake v. State, 753 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2001) (waiver for known issues not raised on direct appeal)
- Rouster v. State, 705 N.E.2d 999 (Ind. 1999) (precludes unfounded PCR grounds)
- Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 2002) (PCR burden of proof; weigh evidence; deference to findings)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (three-part Brady framework; materiality requires prejudice)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment; impeachment materiality)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prejudice from nondiscovery of favorable evidence depends on overall impact)
- Osborne v. District Attorney, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (no post-conviction right to state-evidence access for DNA testing)