State v. Absolu, 13 N.W.3d 764

Arnson Absolu was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder stemming from drug-trade-related killings in Rapid City, South Dakota.
The main State witness, Shamar Bennett, testified against Absolu pursuant to an immunity agreement protecting him from charges related to the murders, but not for other unrelated crimes.
After the trial, Absolu discovered undisclosed information about Bennett's possible involvement in an unrelated infant's death; Absolu argued this should have been disclosed as impeachment (Brady) material.
Defense sought a new trial, claiming the prosecution's failure to disclose this information violated both due process and a broad pretrial discovery order.
The circuit court denied the motion for new trial, finding that while the evidence should have been disclosed, its omission did not prejudice Absolu because he had already impeached Bennett extensively with other evidence.
Absolu appealed, arguing that the non-disclosure undermined the fairness of the trial and his opportunity to present a complete defense.

Issue	Absolu's (Defendant/Appellant) Argument	State's (Plaintiff/Appellee) Argument	Held
Suppression of impeachment evidence (Brady)	Failure to disclose Bennett's possible involvement in infant death prejudiced defense by denying key impeachment evidence.	Evidence was not material; no evidence that nondisclosure would have changed outcome; Bennett's incentive to lie already explored.	No prejudice; not material. Circuit court's denial of new trial affirmed.
Violation of discovery order	Prosecution failed to disclose information subject to broad discovery order, harming defense preparation.	Order may apply, but still no prejudice; evidence cumulative to other extensive impeachment.	Discovery order violated but harmless; no new trial required.
Bennett's motive to lie	Undisclosed infant death investigation showed further motive for Bennett to curry favor with the State.	Any motive for State favor was speculative; Bennett's immunity agreement and credibility already amply attacked at trial.	Additional impeachment evidence cumulative, not material.
Admission of non-disclosed evidence	The undisclosed evidence would have supported a third-party perpetrator defense and reasonable doubt.	Evidence mainly relevant to impeachment, not substantive guilt/innocence; would have been largely inadmissible as character evidence.	Evidence inadmissible for non-impeachment purposes; trial result not undermined.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (due process requires prosecution to disclose material evidence favorable to accused)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady rule applies to impeachment as well as exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (prosecutor's duty to disclose extends even absent specific defense request)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor's office responsibility for information possessed by any prosecutor)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (three elements for a Brady claim: favorable evidence, suppression, and prejudice)