State of Maine v. Abdi A. Hassan, 179 A.3d 898

Background

Hassan was indicted on multiple charges (theft, forgery, negotiating worthless instrument, unsworn falsification); 13 of 15 counts implicated Department of Health and Human Services forms.
The case proceeded slowly (need for interpreters, voluminous discovery); jury selection occurred in May 2017 and trial was scheduled to start May 15, 2017.
On May 11, 2017 the State interviewed a former Department employee who for the first time expressed doubt about signatures/handwriting on three Department forms (Exhibits 57, 60, 61) that the State had supplied to Hassan years earlier.
The State disclosed the former employee’s concerns to Hassan within hours of learning them; Hassan moved to dismiss (or continue) the indictment as a discovery violation and invoked Brady.
The trial court found the late disclosure—despite no bad faith—was a Rule 16/Brady discovery violation, dismissed with prejudice the 13 counts involving the Department, and denied reconsideration; the State appealed.
The Supreme Judicial Court considered whether the State had an obligation to have discovered the witness’s doubts earlier and whether a constitutional Brady violation occurred.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Hassan's Argument	Held
Whether failure to uncover the former employee’s statements earlier violated Rule 16 automatic discovery (possession or control)	No; Rule 16 requires disclosure only of information in State’s possession or control and of matters it knows or reasonably should know	Yes; State had a duty of reasonable diligence and should have unearthed the information earlier	Reversed: no Rule 16 violation because the impeaching information was not in State’s possession or control until the May 11 interview
Whether Brady due process violation occurred from the timing of disclosure	No; Brady requires suppression of favorable evidence known to the State — here State promptly disclosed information once learned	Yes; late disclosure of potentially exculpatory/impeaching evidence prejudiced Hassan	Reversed: no Brady violation because State did not suppress information and promptly disclosed it
Whether dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate sanction for the alleged discovery/Brady violation	Not applicable in view of no violation; dismissal was excessive	Dismissal appropriate due to timing and prejudice from late disclosure	Reversed: court erred to sanction/dismiss; it lacked authority once no violation existed
Standard for prosecutor diligence under Rule 16/Brady regarding former non‑employee witnesses	Duty to make reasonable inquiry of those acting on government’s behalf; not required to discover information outside government’s knowledge/control	Prosecutors must investigate potential witnesses and uncover automatically discoverable information before trial	Court adopts limiting principle: duty extends to matters within State’s possession/control or known to agents; it does not require probing matters wholly outside government knowledge

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable evidence by prosecution violates due process)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady includes impeachment evidence and imposes duty to learn favorable evidence known to government agents)
State v. Mooney, 43 A.3d 972 (Me. 2012) (Rule 16 requires disclosure of matters within State’s possession or control and reasonable inquiry of investigators)
State v. Robbins, 689 A.2d 603 (Me. 1997) (diligent inquiry obligation limited to information in investigators’ files/within government possession)
State v. Ledger, 444 A.2d 404 (Me. 1982) (State violated discovery when prosecutor failed to uncover a letter in investigators’ possession)
State v. Foy, 662 A.2d 238 (Me. 1995) (Rule 16 does not impose responsibility for materials not in prosecutor’s possession or control)