State v. Branham, 392 S.C. 225

Branham was convicted of DUI, first offense, after a jury trial in magistrate court.
The State did not initially provide Branham with a videotape of the breath test site; a datamaster ticket indicated the video was accessible online.
The magistrate denied Branham’s motion to dismiss for lack of the videotape and allowed trial to proceed after a delay for defense review.
Branham appeared pro se for arraignment; later, counsel sought continuance to review the video.
The video was made available online at www.sled.sc.gov with a password and Branham was provided access credentials.
The circuit court affirmed the magistrate’s decision and Branham appealed, arguing the videotape should have been produced or a continuance granted for production.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State complied with 56-5-2953 to produce the breath test site video	Branham argues failure to produce mandates dismissal	State alleges production via online access satisfied obligation	Yes; online production satisfies duty to produce

City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 646 S.E.2d 879 (2007) (dismissal appropriate if production not mitigated by exceptions)
State v. Landon, 370 S.C. 103, 634 S.E.2d 660 (2006) (open access to records satisfies production obligation)
State v. Newell, 303 S.C. 471, 401 S.E.2d 420 (1991) (open file/open access satisfies disclosure duty)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (1999) (open-file/open-access discovery reasonable)
Riddle v. Ozmint, 369 S.C. 39, 631 S.E.2d 70 (2006) (open-file discovery supports due process discovery)
U.S. v. Driver, 798 F.2d 248 (1986) (open-file policy as discovery practice)