State v. Ellison, 2012 MT 50

Ellison was convicted in Justice Court of misdemeanor PFMA under § 45-5-206, MCA.
He appealed to the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County.
Ellison alleged Brady violations and sought to supplement the record with evidence not disclosed by the State.
The alleged exculpatory materials were two items: a transcript of Rhonda’s undated police interview and text messages from Ellison’s phone, provided a month before PFMA trial in a related witness tampering investigation.
The District Court declined to review the Brady claims on the merits, citing lack of appellate record scope, and did not order any further proceedings.
This Court reviews the district court’s decision de novo and determines whether a Brady claim has merit and whether the district court erred in its appellate handling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court should have reviewed Ellison's Brady claims on their merits or ordered a new trial.	Ellison argues the court should consider suppressed-exculpatory evidence under § 46-20-701(2)(b) or direct a new trial.	The State argues plain error rules do not allow review absent a proper record or proceedings.	District Court erred by not reviewing Brady claims; merits review permitted.
Whether the evidence alleged to be suppressed constitutes a Brady violation and was prejudicial.	Ellison contends the interview transcript and text messages were exculpatory and suppressed.	State contends no suppression occurred and evidence was not material or prejudicial.	No Brady violation; evidence not material or prejudicial.
Whether the evidence was known or available to Ellison before trial and thus could not be a Brady violation.	Ellison could have used the evidence but did not obtain it earlier; suppression claim should still apply because it was information in the state's possession.	There was no suppression; Ellison or counsel knew or could have obtained the materials; not a Brady violation.	No suppression found; evidence was not exculpatory under Brady to a prejudicial extent.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (establishes mandatory disclosure of exculpatory evidence)
State v. Arlington, 265 Mont. 127 (Mont. 1994) (recognizes plain error review for Brady claims)
City of Missoula v. Robertson, 298 Mont. 419 (Mont. 2000) (limits appellate review to record and law under § 3-10-115)
State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126 (Mont. 1996) (Brady-related claims reviewed under plain error framework)
State v. Hatfield, 269 Mont. 307 (Mont. 1995) (due process breach for suppressed exculpatory evidence)
State v. St. Dennis, 358 Mont. 88 (Mont. 2010) (three components of a true Brady violation)