Brady violation in North Dakota

2025To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove: (1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 132, ¶ 25 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (cleaned up). [¶5] To prevail on a Brady claim a defendant must satisfy all four prongs or factors of the legal test.

2025To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove: (1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 132, ¶ 25 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (cleaned up). [¶5] To prevail on a Brady claim a defendant must satisfy all four prongs or factors of the legal test.

2020“To establish a Brady violation, the burden is upon the defendant to show: ‘(1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.’” Id. (quoting State v. Goulet, 1999 ND 80, ¶ 15 , 593 N.W.2d 345 ).

2020“To establish a Brady violation, the burden is upon the defendant to show: ‘(1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.’” Id. (quoting State v. Goulet, 1999 ND 80, ¶ 15 , 593 N.W.2d 345 ).

2012To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove: “(1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 132, ¶25 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (quoting Rummer v. State, 2006 ND 216, ¶ 21 , 722 N.W.2d 528 ). [¶ 23] The State provided Clark with copies of the invoices prior to tri

2012To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove: “(1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 132, ¶25 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (quoting Rummer v. State, 2006 ND 216, ¶ 21 , 722 N.W.2d 528 ). [¶ 23] The State provided Clark with copies of the invoices prior to tri

2012To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove: “(1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 132, ¶25 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (quoting Rummer v. State, 2006 ND 216, ¶ 21 , 722 N.W.2d 528 ). [¶ 23] The State provided Clark with copies of the invoices prior to tri

2012To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove: “(1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.” State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 132, ¶25 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (quoting Rummer v. State, 2006 ND 216, ¶ 21 , 722 N.W.2d 528 ). [¶ 23] The State provided Clark with copies of the invoices prior to tri

2007See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (stating that the duty under Brady “encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence”); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (holding impeachment evidence falls within the Brady rule).

2007See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (stating that the duty under Brady “encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence”); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (holding impeachment evidence falls within the Brady rule).

2007See State v. Hager, 271 N.W.2d 476, 482 (N.D.1978) (“[T]he Jencks Act [is] not constitutionally mandated and thus [is] *868 not binding on the state’s criminal courts.”). [¶ 20] We recently explained the Brady standard in Rummer v. State, which provides: “In Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ], the United States Supreme Court held that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process if the evidence is material to guilt or punishment.” Syvertson v. State, 2005 ND 128, ¶ 6 , 699 N.W.2d 855 (quoting Ramstad, 2003 ND 41,

2007See State v. Hager, 271 N.W.2d 476, 482 (N.D.1978) (“[T]he Jencks Act [is] not constitutionally mandated and thus [is] *868 not binding on the state’s criminal courts.”). [¶ 20] We recently explained the Brady standard in Rummer v. State, which provides: “In Brady [v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ], the United States Supreme Court held that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process if the evidence is material to guilt or punishment.” Syvertson v. State, 2005 ND 128, ¶ 6 , 699 N.W.2d 855 (quoting Ramstad, 2003 ND 41,

2015See Horn, 2014 ND 230, ¶21 , 857 N.W.2d 77 *690 (“[A] defendant’s failure to discover evidence due to a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim that the prosecution withheld such evidence.”); Thorson, 2008 ND 76, ¶ 13 , 660 N.W.2d 581 (“[DJefendant’s failure to discover evidence from a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim.... ”); Sievers, 543 N.W.2d at 497 (a defendant’s failure to conduct further inquiry to reveal undisclosed information when defendant was aware of evidence for more than two months was considered “a lack of diligence”).

2015See Horn, 2014 ND 230, ¶21 , 857 N.W.2d 77 *690 (“[A] defendant’s failure to discover evidence due to a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim that the prosecution withheld such evidence.”); Thorson, 2008 ND 76, ¶ 13 , 660 N.W.2d 581 (“[DJefendant’s failure to discover evidence from a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim.... ”); Sievers, 543 N.W.2d at 497 (a defendant’s failure to conduct further inquiry to reveal undisclosed information when defendant was aware of evidence for more than two months was considered “a lack of diligence”).

1983In this regard we agree with the Oregon Court of Appeals in State v. Michener, 25 Or.App. 523 , 550 P.2d 449 (1976), wherein it stated: ‘We deem it apparent that the Brady rule requires disclosure of material evidence where a defendant establishes some reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence rather than fertile imagination, that it would be favorable to his cause.’ 550 P.2d at 454 .” Larson, supra, 313 N.W.2d at 756 .

1983In this regard we agree with the Oregon Court of Appeals in State v. Michener, 25 Or.App. 523 , 550 P.2d 449 (1976), wherein it stated: ‘We deem it apparent that the Brady rule requires disclosure of material evidence where a defendant establishes some reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence rather than fertile imagination, that it would be favorable to his cause.’ 550 P.2d at 454 .” Larson, supra, 313 N.W.2d at 756 .

1983In State v. Larson, supra, 313 N.W.2d at 753-54 , we extended the application of the Brady rule to cases wherein evidence requested by the defendant has been lost or discarded by the State: “ ‘Were Brady and its progeny applicable only when the exact content of the non-disclosed materials was known, the disclosure duty would be an empty promise, easily circumvented by suppression of evidence by means of destruction rather than mere failure to reveal.’ ” Larson, supra, (quoting United States v. Bryant, supra, 439 F.2d at 648 .).

1983In State v. Larson, supra, 313 N.W.2d at 753-54 , we extended the application of the Brady rule to cases wherein evidence requested by the defendant has been lost or discarded by the State: “ ‘Were Brady and its progeny applicable only when the exact content of the non-disclosed materials was known, the disclosure duty would be an empty promise, easily circumvented by suppression of evidence by means of destruction rather than mere failure to reveal.’ ” Larson, supra, (quoting United States v. Bryant, supra, 439 F.2d at 648 .).

2025Williams, 2025 ND 46, ¶ 4 .

2025Williams, 2025 ND 46, ¶ 4 .

2024State v. Schweitzer, 2021 ND 109, ¶ 3 , 961 N.W.2d 310 (quoting Kolstad, at ¶ 19).

2024State v. Schweitzer, 2021 ND 109, ¶ 3 , 961 N.W.2d 310 (quoting Kolstad, at ¶ 19).

2021State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180, ¶ 14 , 853 N.W.2d 556 .

2021State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180, ¶ 14 , 853 N.W.2d 556 .

2016“Only constitutional error that is ‘egregious’ or ‘grave’ is subject to the obvious error rule.” Id. (quoting State v. Parisien, 2005 ND 152, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 306 ). [¶ 10] Assuming the mug shot qualifies as evidence subject to a Brady analysis, Beaulieu’s Brady argument fails for the same reasons discussed above regarding his motion for new trial.

2016“Only constitutional error that is ‘egregious’ or ‘grave’ is subject to the obvious error rule.” Id. (quoting State v. Parisien, 2005 ND 152, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 306 ). [¶ 10] Assuming the mug shot qualifies as evidence subject to a Brady analysis, Beaulieu’s Brady argument fails for the same reasons discussed above regarding his motion for new trial.

2016“Only constitutional error that is ‘egregious’ or ‘grave’ is subject to the obvious error rule.” Id. (quoting State v. Parisien, 2005 ND 152, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 306 ). [¶ 10] Assuming the mug shot qualifies as evidence subject to a Brady analysis, Beaulieu’s Brady argument fails for the same reasons discussed above regarding his motion for new trial.

2016“Only constitutional error that is ‘egregious’ or ‘grave’ is subject to the obvious error rule.” Id. (quoting State v. Parisien, 2005 ND 152, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 306 ). [¶ 10] Assuming the mug shot qualifies as evidence subject to a Brady analysis, Beaulieu’s Brady argument fails for the same reasons discussed above regarding his motion for new trial.

2015State v. Muhle, *688 2007 ND 132, ¶ 7 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (citing State v. Sevigny, 2006 ND 211, ¶ 24 ,- 722 N.W.2d 515 ).

2015State v. Muhle, *688 2007 ND 132, ¶ 7 , 737 N.W.2d 647 (citing State v. Sevigny, 2006 ND 211, ¶ 24 ,- 722 N.W.2d 515 ).

2015See Horn, 2014 ND 230, ¶21 , 857 N.W.2d 77 *690 (“[A] defendant’s failure to discover evidence due to a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim that the prosecution withheld such evidence.”); Thorson, 2008 ND 76, ¶ 13 , 660 N.W.2d 581 (“[DJefendant’s failure to discover evidence from a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim.... ”); Sievers, 543 N.W.2d at 497 (a defendant’s failure to conduct further inquiry to reveal undisclosed information when defendant was aware of evidence for more than two months was considered “a lack of diligence”).

2015See Horn, 2014 ND 230, ¶21 , 857 N.W.2d 77 *690 (“[A] defendant’s failure to discover evidence due to a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim that the prosecution withheld such evidence.”); Thorson, 2008 ND 76, ¶ 13 , 660 N.W.2d 581 (“[DJefendant’s failure to discover evidence from a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim.... ”); Sievers, 543 N.W.2d at 497 (a defendant’s failure to conduct further inquiry to reveal undisclosed information when defendant was aware of evidence for more than two months was considered “a lack of diligence”).