State of West Virginia v. Gary Elmer Tacy, 16-0798

In May 2010 Tacy entered the High Life Lounge, handed a robbery note while wearing a fake beard; he fled after patrons were alerted.
One witness positively identified Tacy; the cashier did not identify him in photographic line-ups and noted none of the lineup photos showed beards. Tacy’s fingerprints matched a print on the demand note.
Tacy was indicted for attempted second-degree robbery and wearing a mask or face covering and tried by jury in February 2011; he was convicted on both counts.
Shortly before trial Tacy’s counsel received the grand jury transcript showing two witnesses (including the cashier) failed to identify him in photo line-ups; Tacy moved to dismiss or continue the trial based on late disclosure of this allegedly exculpatory evidence.
The circuit court ruled the transcript contained exculpatory impeachment material, permitted its use at trial, denied the continuance/dismissal motion, and preserved Tacy’s objection; the conviction stood and Tacy later sought resentencing to renew his appeal period, leading to the July 22, 2016 resentencing order now on appeal.
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence was not suppressed under Brady and that Tacy could use it at trial for impeachment, so denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance/dismissal after late disclosure of grand jury transcript showing failed photo IDs	Tacy: State withheld exculpatory/impeachment evidence until just before trial, prejudicing his ability to prepare; continuance needed	State: Transcript was provided before trial; evidence was impeachment material that Tacy could and did use at trial	Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence was not suppressed under Brady and was used for impeachment, so denial of continuance proper
Whether nondisclosure violated Brady during plea negotiation such that relief like Buffey is required	Tacy: Late disclosure deprived him of exculpatory info when evaluating plea offers	State: Tacy did not plead guilty; unlike Buffey, he was tried and able to use the evidence at trial	Court: Buffey is distinguishable; Brady protections at plea stage apply but do not require relief where defendant was informed before trial and used evidence at trial

State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (W.Va. 2000) (standard of review for circuit court findings and rulings)
State v. Bush, 163 W.Va. 168, 255 S.E.2d 539 (W.Va. 1979) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Youngblood, 221 W.Va. 20, 650 S.E.2d 119 (W.Va. 2007) (Brady three-part test for suppressed evidence)
United States v. Knight, 342 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2003) (when evidence is considered suppressed for Brady purposes)
Buffey v. Ballard, 236 W.Va. 509, 782 S.E.2d 204 (W.Va. 2015) (Brady applies at plea negotiation stage; suppression may permit withdrawal of plea)
State v. Hatfield, 169 W.Va. 191, 286 S.E.2d 402 (W.Va. 1982) (Brady framework applied in state law context)
State ex rel. Bratcher v. Cooke, 155 W.Va. 850, 188 S.E.2d 769 (W.Va. 1972) (circuit court discretion to renew appeal period)