2013 COA 151
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- David Bueno was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of inmate Jeffrey Heird; prosecution emphasized an anonymous note naming Bueno as a killer.
- After trial but before sentencing, prosecutors disclosed ("in an abundance of caution") an ABN letter and related prison nurse incident report (Deatrich report) and a gang intelligence report by Lt. Smelser that connected Heird’s death to another inmate death; these documents had been in a former prosecutor’s working file years earlier but were not produced at trial.
- Defense counsel learned of the ABN letter and Deatrich report only after trial (June–July 2008–2009) when a codefendant’s counsel and then the DA’s office located them; originals existed in Department of Corrections files that defense had access to in 2007 but did not find the documents then.
- Bueno moved for a new trial under Crim. P. 33(c) and on Brady/Crim. P. 16 grounds, arguing the undisclosed materials were favorable/exculpatory and would have supported an alternative-suspect theory implicating white supremacists.
- The trial court granted a new trial, finding the prosecution violated Crim. P. 16 and Brady by failing to disclose material potentially affecting the verdict; the People appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Bueno) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution violated Crim. P. 16(I)(a)(2) and Brady by failing to disclose ABN letter, Deatrich report, Smelser report | Disclosure was adequate because the materials were "available" for defense review in DOC files in 2007 | Prosecution possessed copies in its working file and therefore had a mandatory duty to disclose; suppression occurred | Trial court did not abuse discretion: nondisclosure violated Crim. P. 16 and Brady and could have affected the verdict; sanction (new trial) affirmed |
| Whether defendant’s Crim. P. 33(c) motion based on newly discovered evidence was timely | Motion was untimely because defense learned of the materials in June 2008 and did not file promptly after verdict/finding of guilt | "Entry of judgment" includes sentencing; Bueno had not been sentenced when he filed, so the motion was timely as a matter of law | As a matter of first impression, "entry of judgment" includes sentencing; because Bueno was not yet sentenced, his motion was timely |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial under Crim. P. 33(c) (Williams factors: discovery after trial, diligence, materiality, probable acquittal) | Defense lacked reasonable diligence; evidence was not likely to produce acquittal | Evidence was discovered after trial; prosecution suppressed it; evidence was material to alternative-suspect theory and could have influenced a closely divided jury | Trial court’s findings were supported by the record and it did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial |
| Whether making materials "available" to defense suffices where prosecution had copies in its working file | Availability at the DOC (for review) was sufficient | Mandatory disclosure under Crim. P. 16(I)(a)(2) is more than mere availability; possession requires affirmative disclosure | Mandatory disclosure requires providing Brady material in the prosecution’s possession; mere availability was insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard: reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed outcome)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (three components of Brady: favorable, suppressed, material)
- People v. Williams, 827 P.2d 612 (Colo. App. 1992) (four-part test for new trial on newly discovered evidence)
- People v. District Court, 790 P.2d 332 (Colo. 1990) (Crim. P. 16(I)(a)(2) disclosure obligations)