State ex rel. Hawley v. Beger, 549 S.W.3d 507

Lisa Jennings died from a single gunshot to the head on Christmas Day 2006; Jennings (her husband) called 911 and was ultimately convicted of murder after a jury trial.
Ballistics tied a nearby bullet to Jennings’s revolver found under Lisa’s leg; GSR testing at trial showed residue on Lisa’s hands and none on Jennings’s.
Highway Patrol investigator Daniel Nash reconstructed the scene and sought additional testing; a GSR test on the robe Jennings wore that night produced exculpatory results but those results were not disclosed to defense or the prosecutors at trial.
The State’s lead trial counsel and Nash both testified they were unaware of the robe’s GSR result until post-conviction/habeas proceedings.
Jennings’s post-conviction and direct appeals failed; in 2015 new counsel discovered the undisclosed GSR result and Jennings filed a habeas petition alleging a Brady violation.
The habeas court credited Jennings, found a Brady violation, vacated the convictions, and ordered release unless retried; the State sought certiorari review in this court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jennings’s Brady claim was procedurally barred	Jennings: he did not know of the GSR result and thus could not have raised it earlier	State: defense knew or should have known robe was GSR-tested and thus claim is defaulted	Court: not barred — record shows prosecution and trial counsel were unaware and nondisclosure prevented earlier raising
Whether GSR result was Brady-material (favorable/suppressed)	Jennings: result was exculpatory/impeaching and was suppressed	State: diminishes exculpatory value, not material	Court: result qualifies as impeachment evidence and was suppressed by State
Whether nondisclosure was prejudicial (materiality)	Jennings: nondisclosure undermined confidence in verdict; Nash was State’s key witness	State: disclosure would not have changed outcome; minimize impeachment value	Court: prejudice shown — reasonable probability trial outcome undermined because impeachment of key witness was material
Scope of certiorari review	State: court should quash habeas record if error apparent on record	Respondent/habeas court: habeas grant permissible; certiorari limited to face-of-record legal review	Court: limited review performed and declines to quash record (does not resolve guilt/innocence)

State ex rel. Hawley v. Heagney, 523 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. banc 2017) (certiorari review scope for habeas grants)
State ex rel. Nixon v. Sprick, 59 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2001) (standards for habeas relief and review)
State ex rel. Woodworth v. Denney, 396 S.W.3d 330 (Mo. banc 2013) (Brady framework and related discussion)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (standard for prejudice/materiality under Brady)
State ex rel. Clemons v. Larkins, 475 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. banc 2015) (Brady prejudice standard; reasonable probability test)
State ex rel. Engel v. Dormire, 304 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. banc 2010) (impeachment evidence nondisclosure can be prejudicial under Brady)