State of West Virginia v. Robert Watring, 15-0932

Background

Robert Watring was indicted for two counts of wanton endangerment (firearm) and one count of malicious assault for actions against his former girlfriend; convicted by jury and sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 12–22 years.
Prosecutor provided two discovery packets pretrial, which did not include two photographs taken by Deputy W.T. McNair showing the victim’s red marks on her neck and bent/broken glasses.
At trial the victim and witnesses testified to visible neck redness and damaged glasses; on cross-examination the victim acknowledged Deputy McNair took photos, prompting a bench conference where the prosecutor said he was not introducing them and the defense said it had never seen them.
Defense argued after conviction that (1) nondisclosure violated Brady and due process because the police photos were known to investigators and imputed to the prosecutor, and (2) the photos were newly discovered evidence or violated Rule 16/discovery rules and prejudiced defense preparation and plea bargaining.
The circuit court denied a new trial and later denied motion to vacate sentence, finding the photos were consistent with trial testimony (cumulative), not exculpatory or impeachment material, the State did not introduce them, and defense counsel had not requested to examine them at trial.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, applying Brady and newly discovered evidence standards and concluding the photographs were cumulative and not prejudicial or exculpatory.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Watring)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Brady disclosure violation: Did failure to produce police photos pretrial violate due process?	Photos were known to police and thus imputed to prosecutor; their nondisclosure denied Brady material evidence.	Photos were not exculpatory or impeachment material; they merely corroborated witness testimony and were not introduced by the State.	Denied — photos were not favorable impeachment/exculpatory evidence, so Brady not shown.
Discovery Rule 16 / pretrial disclosure: Did nondisclosure prejudice defense or warrant relief?	Nondisclosure surprised defense and could have affected plea negotiations or trial preparation.	Defense had police report describing injuries (provided); photos were consistent with known facts so defense was not hampered.	Denied — although surprised, defendant failed to show prejudice or hampering of defense.
Newly discovered evidence: Do the photos justify a new trial?	Photos discovered post-trial are newly discovered and potentially exculpatory; a new trial is warranted.	Photos are cumulative of trial testimony and would not likely produce a different verdict.	Denied — photographs cumulative and would not change outcome; new-trial criteria not met.
Standard of review: Appropriate deference to lower court?	N/A (argument addressed via merits)	Trial court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; new-trial rulings under abuse of discretion.	Affirmed — appellate standards applied; no abuse of discretion or clear error found.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
State v. Youngblood, 221 W.Va. 20, 650 S.E.2d 119 (2007) (police knowledge imputed to prosecutor for Brady purposes)
State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000) (standard of review for circuit court rulings and factual findings)
State v. Miller, 178 W.Va. 618, 363 S.E.2d 504 (1987) (pretrial discovery non-disclosure prejudice rule)
State v. William M., 225 W.Va. 256, 692 S.E.2d 299 (2010) (standards for newly discovered evidence/new trial)