State v. Douglas Carranza, 13-17-00059-CR

Carranza was charged with family-violence assault against Marissa Ortiz and tried in County Court at Law No. 1, Nueces County.
After initially cross-examining Ortiz, Carranza’s counsel designated her a recall witness and she remained available for the rest of trial.
On day two, defense counsel received previously missing pages of a report showing Ortiz had been cited for disorderly conduct (“fighting”) at age fourteen; the State had not disclosed those pages earlier.
The trial court sustained the State’s objection to admitting the juvenile citation as evidence at trial; Carranza was convicted and given a 60-day jail sentence, suspended for 12 months.
Carranza moved for a new trial alleging a Brady violation (suppression of favorable evidence); at the hearing counsel admitted he learned the pages on day two, did not request a continuance, and did not recall Ortiz after receiving them.
The trial court granted a new trial; on appeal the State challenged that ruling, arguing Carranza failed to show materiality/prejudice under Brady.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation	Carranza: the State suppressed favorable evidence (missing report pages) and the late disclosure prejudiced his defense	State: although disclosure was late, the evidence was not shown to be material because Ortiz was available for recall and defense did not seek continuance or recall her	Reversed: Carranza failed to prove Brady materiality/prejudice; trial court abused discretion in granting new trial

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
State v. Zalman, 400 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for appellate review of new-trial grants)
Fears v. State, 479 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2015) (timeliness of mid-trial disclosure and prejudice inquiry)
Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (deferential review of trial-court fact findings, de novo review of Brady materiality)
Apolinar v. State, 106 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), aff'd (discusses effect of failing to request continuance after late disclosure)
Perez v. State, 414 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (failure to request continuance can waive Brady complaint)
Allen v. State, 473 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (speculation about discovering additional favorable witnesses does not establish Brady materiality)
Herndon, 215 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (limits on granting new trials based on sympathy or hunches)
Young v. State, 183 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005) (same principle regarding continuance waiver)
Williams v. State, 995 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (same principle regarding continuance waiver)