Pena, Jose Luis, 353 S.W.3d 797

Appellant was indicted for possession of more than five but less than fifty pounds of marijuana and sentenced to life as a habitual offender.
A car-mounted video captured the stop, detention, and transport; the plant material was later tested and found to be marijuana.
Defense obtained a Brady motion pretrial and was told the videotape had no audio; the material was later destroyed in March 2000.
A portion of the videotape with audio existed but was not disclosed; defense learned of audio only after deliberations.
The State introduced the non-audio videotape at trial; the audio portion was discovered after closing arguments.
The Waco Court of Appeals held Brady did not apply; this Court granted review to decide otherwise and reverse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brady applies to the audio portion of a videotape.	Pena—audio exculpatory; State suppressed favorable evidence.	Pena—State knew of audio; suppressing it violated Brady.	Yes; Brady applies to the audio portion.
Whether the audio evidence was preserved and properly presented.	Defense moved for testing; audio was not disclosed.	State's failure to disclose was improper and preserved error.	Error preserved; Brady violation.
Materiality of the audio evidence.	Audio undermines credibility and shows testing demand; could alter outcome.	Audio would not change result.	Audio material; likely to have changed the outcome.
Admissibility of the audio under Rule 107 and related evidence rules.	Audio would assist completeness under Rule 107.	Audio hearsay not admissible.	Audio would be admissible under Rule 107.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for withheld evidence)
Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Brady materiality framework in Texas)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality depends on totality of evidence)
Havard v. State, 800 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (distinguishes cases where defendant knew the information)
Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limits of Brady where defendant already knew information)
Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (admissibility condition for evidence in Brady context)
Allridge v. State, 762 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (completeness rule considerations for hearsay)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (no magic words; specificity in preservation)