State v. Robert Benjamin Brackett
Background
- Brackett was convicted by a jury of possession of sexually exploitative materials and sexual battery of a 16–17 year old; sentences were imposed and affirmed on direct appeal.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Brackett filed a first motion for new trial (denied) and later a second motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (an affidavit from defense witness Timothy Miner alleging statements by the victim that impeached the prosecutor/victim).
- The district court granted appointed counsel, then allowed counsel to withdraw at Brackett’s request and permitted Brackett to proceed pro se for the second-motion hearing; the court denied a continuance and denied the second motion.
- The district court held Miner’s affidavit was inadmissible hearsay and, applying the Drapeau test, found the affidavits were only impeachment in nature and would not probably produce an acquittal given the overwhelming evidence at trial.
- Brackett filed post-appeal motions for production of documents; the district court denied them as lacking jurisdiction (the court also mistakenly stated some timeliness rules during hearings, but the remittitur date made later motions potentially timely until Aug 5, 2018).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance / Brady raised on appeal | Brackett argued counsel failed and prosecutor suppressed favorable evidence warranting relief | State: these claims were not raised below and cannot be considered on appeal; even if considered they are not grounds for a new trial | Court: Claims forfeited because not raised in second-motion below; ineffective assistance and Brady are not statutory bases for a new-trial motion under I.C. § 19-2406 |
| Second motion for new trial (Miner affidavit) | Miner’s affidavit alleging the victim was threatened and paid is newly discovered, material evidence justifying a new trial | State: Affidavit is hearsay, only impeachment, and would not probably produce an acquittal given trial evidence | Court: Denied — affidavit is inadmissible hearsay and only impeachment; Drapeau factors not met because evidence not material to guilt and would not likely produce acquittal |
| Faretta / self-representation warnings | Brackett contends court should have given Faretta warnings before letting him proceed pro se at the hearing | State: Court’s earlier Faretta inquiry and Brackett’s history of self-representation showed he understood risks | Court: No new warnings required; record as a whole shows Brackett knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel |
| Motion for production of documents during appeal | Brackett sought post-appeal discovery (Brady-related production) from district court | State: Trial court lacked jurisdiction after appeal; discovery not authorized post-conviction in criminal case | Court: Denied for lack of jurisdiction — case was stayed by appeal and court could not entertain the post-appeal discovery motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brackett, 160 Idaho 619, 377 P.3d 1082 (Ct. App.) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation and need to ensure waiver is knowing)
- State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685, 551 P.2d 972 (1976) (test for new trial on newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Wade, 125 Idaho 522, 873 P.2d 167 (Ct. App.) (limits on trial-court actions during pendency of appeal and scope of I.A.R. 13(c)(10))
- State v. Parrott, 138 Idaho 40, 57 P.3d 509 (Ct. App.) (finality of judgment for Rule 34 timing is upon remittitur)
- State v. Dalrymple, 144 Idaho 628, 167 P.3d 765 (Idaho Supreme Court) (Faretta waiver assessed from record as whole)
- State v. Marsh, 141 Idaho 862, 119 P.3d 637 (Ct. App.) (distinguishing substantive vs. impeachment evidence)
- State v. Egersdorf, 126 Idaho 684, 889 P.2d 118 (Ct. App.) (standard of review for motions for new trial)