Temple, David Mark
WR-78,545-02
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- David Mark Temple was convicted of murdering his wife in 1999 and sentenced to life; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Police investigated alternative suspects (notably neighbor R.J.S.) and generated ~1,400 pages of offense reports; many reports were not provided to defense until or during trial.
- Temple’s trial defense advanced an alternate-perpetrator / alibi timeline (key: father Kenneth’s prior statement put victim leaving parents’ home at 3:55 p.m.), but late disclosure hampered investigation and trial preparation.
- Prosecutor believed she could withhold or delay disclosure of material she judged irrelevant or incredible; defense counsel requested the reports early but was denied access after the prosecution “closed” its file when an examining trial was requested.
- Applicant filed a habeas application alleging Brady violations, ineffective assistance under Strickland, and actual innocence; the habeas judge conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing and recommended relief on Brady grounds.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed the State violated Brady by failing to timely disclose favorable evidence, denied relief on actual-innocence and Strickland claims (but found defense performance prejudiced by State’s Brady violations), set aside the conviction, and remanded for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Temple) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady: timely disclosure of favorable evidence | State withheld/excessively delayed police reports and witness statements that were favorable/impeaching and would have supported alternate-suspect defense | Prosecutor: she timely provided what she believed was Brady; some material was not relevant/credible so not required to be turned over | Court: Brady violated — State did not satisfy duty to timely disclose favorable evidence; relief granted |
| Actual innocence | New or suppressed evidence shows actual innocence | State maintains evidence insufficient; habeas judge found actual-innocence relief not justified | Denied — Court agreed no actual-innocence relief warranted |
| Ineffective assistance (Strickland) | Counsel failed (e.g., not refreshing Kenneth’s memory) and was ineffective in presenting alibi/alternate-suspect defense | State: counsel had access to some material and tactical choices; errors not prejudicial | Court: declined relief on Strickland; any counsel deficiency was largely caused and prejudiced by Brady violations, so remedy under Brady sufficed |
| Remedy / disposition | New trial or other relief due to prejudicial nondisclosure | Opposes or limits relief | Court set aside conviction and remanded for trial (writ granted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence covered by Brady)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of different result)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (cumulative materiality analysis under Brady)
- Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (post-conviction appellate history)
- Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (Brady/impeachment evidence discussion)
- Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (actual-innocence framework)