State v. Birdshead, 888 N.W.2d 209

Birdshead convicted in 2013 of first-degree manslaughter, a felony with a firearm, and possession of a controlled weapon.
On appeal, the court considered whether the State violated Brady by denying access to UNET/UNET-intelligence files; remanded to include UNET files in the record for reconsideration.
On remand, circuit court found UNET files were not in the remand-record and directed the State to submit records for in-camera review.
A 2015 search produced 77 pages; some witnesses testified about prior UNET searches, but the State maintained it complied with the remand scope.
The circuit court held the UNET records contained no Brady material and denied a new trial; Birdshead appeals the Brady ruling and the denial of a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State violated due process or Brady by failing to disclose records for in-camera review in 2013	Birdshead asserts State violated the 2013 discovery order and due process by not disclosing UNET records.	State contends it complied by searching only witnesses it intended to call in 2013.	No Brady or due process violation found.
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying a new trial	Birdshead claims misconduct and newly discovered evidence warrant a new trial.	State argues remand scope limits reconsideration to UNET material; Milk perjury not shown; no new trial warranted.	Denial of a new trial affirmed.

State v. Moeller, 616 N.W.2d 424 (2000 SD 122) (materiality of belated disclosure for due process)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) ( Brady components and prejudice)
Thompson v. Weber, 841 N.W.2d 3 (2013 SD 87) (prejudice standard for Brady claims)
State v. Spiry, 543 N.W.2d 260 (1996 SD 14) (prejudicial error standard)
State v. Muhm, 775 N.W.2d 508 (2009 SD 100) (abuse of discretion in reviewing discovery orders)
State v. Krebs, 714 N.W.2d 91 (2006 SD 43) (abuse of discretion; standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Piper, 842 N.W.2d 338 (2014 SD 2) (remand scope and not reopening the entire case)