State v. Hassan, 179 A.3d 898

Background

Grand jury indicted Abdi A. Hassan on 15 counts (theft, aggravated forgery, negotiating a worthless instrument, unsworn falsification); 13 counts involved Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) documents.
The case proceeded slowly (interpreters, voluminous discovery); jury was selected in May 2017 and trial was to start May 15, 2017.
On May 11, 2017, a former DHHS employee (potential State witness) expressed for the first time doubts about signatures/handwriting on three Department forms (Exhibits 57, 60, 61) that the State had produced to defense years earlier.
The State disclosed this newly learned information to Hassan within hours. Hassan moved to dismiss (or, alternatively, for a continuance) as a discovery sanction; the trial court treated the late disclosure as a Rule 16 and Brady discovery violation and dismissed, with prejudice, the 13 DHHS-related counts.
The trial court denied reconsideration; the State appealed. The Law Court vacated the dismissal, holding the State did not violate Rule 16 or Brady and remanded for trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State violated Rule 16 by failing to disclose exculpatory/impeaching information earlier	Hassan: the State should have discovered and disclosed witness concerns earlier; late disclosure prejudiced defense and warranted dismissal	State: exhibits and any concerns were not in State's possession or control until the witness disclosed them on May 11; State promptly disclosed thereafter	Court: No Rule 16 violation — Rule 16 covers matters in the State's "possession or control;" the State had no reason to know earlier and disclosed within hours
Whether Brady was violated by failure to disclose favorable evidence	Hassan: oral statements raising doubts about exhibits were favorable and suppressed, so due process violated	State: no suppression — exhibits had been produced earlier and the witness concerns were disclosed promptly when learned	Court: No Brady violation — favorable evidence was not suppressed and prosecutors cannot be charged with failure to disclose information not known or in their control
Whether the court could dismiss counts as sanction for discovery violation	Hassan: dismissal appropriate given timing and jury selection already occurred	State: dismissal was an abuse of discretion because no discovery/Brady violation occurred and there was no bad faith	Court: Dismissal with prejudice was unauthorized because there was no legal violation to sanction; judgment vacated and counts reinstated
Scope of prosecutor's duty of diligence (to interview witnesses/search for Brady/Rule 16 material)	Hassan: prosecutor had a duty to investigate and should have obtained these witness statements earlier	State: Rule 16/Brady require diligent inquiry into matter within State's possession or control, but do not require probing matters outside government's knowledge	Court: Duty extends only to matters within State's possession or control; prosecutors are not required to investigate unknown, out-of-control matters earlier

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional rule that suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady standards: favorable, suppressed, material; prosecutor's duty to learn of evidence known to others acting on government's behalf)
State v. Mooney, 43 A.3d 972 (Me. 2012) (Rule 16 requires disclosure of matters in State's possession/control and reasonable inquiry of investigators)
State v. Robbins, 689 A.2d 603 (Me. 1997) (duty to make diligent inquiry limited to matters investigators already have in their files)
State v. Foy, 662 A.2d 238 (Me. 1995) (prosecutor not responsible for producing materials not within possession or control)
State v. Ledger, 444 A.2d 404 (Me. 1982) (State violated discovery when prosecutors failed to uncover and disclose material in investigators' possession)