Brady violation in South Carolina

2021See Gibson, 334 S.C. at 524 , 514 S.E.2d at 324 (providing "the evidence [must be] favorable to the accused" for its nondisclosure to constitute a Brady violation).

2021See Gibson, 334 S.C. at 524 , 514 S.E.2d at 324 (providing "the evidence [must be] favorable to the accused" for its nondisclosure to constitute a Brady violation).

2026See State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); State v. Gathers, 295 S.C. 476, 481 , 369 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1988), aff'd, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defenda

2026See State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); State v. Gathers, 295 S.C. 476, 481 , 369 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1988), aff'd, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defenda

2023The United States Supreme Court then made certain: "Impeachment evidence . . . as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676 .

2023The United States Supreme Court then made certain: "Impeachment evidence . . . as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676 .

2025See Lawton, 382 S.C. at 126 n.4, 675 S.E.2d at 456 n.4 ("As there is no evidence indicating Lawton's statement was in anyway exculpatory, the Brady rule is not at issue in this case."); see also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment").

2025See Lawton, 382 S.C. at 126 n.4, 675 S.E.2d at 456 n.4 ("As there is no evidence indicating Lawton's statement was in anyway exculpatory, the Brady rule is not at issue in this case."); see also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment").

2017As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant "violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution"); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) (explaining to establish a Brady violation in South Carolina

2017As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant "violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution"); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) (explaining to establish a Brady violation in South Carolina

2021See State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 107, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 53 (2020) ("A Brady violation occurs when the evidence at issue is: 1) favorable to the accused; 2) in the possession of or known to the prosecution; 3) suppressed by the prosecution; and 4) material to the defendant's guilt or punishment."), cert denied, No. 20-6725, 2021 WL 666663 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021); id. (stating that evidence is material "when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different"); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 224 , 715 S.E.2

2021See State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 107, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 53 (2020) ("A Brady violation occurs when the evidence at issue is: 1) favorable to the accused; 2) in the possession of or known to the prosecution; 3) suppressed by the prosecution; and 4) material to the defendant's guilt or punishment."), cert denied, No. 20-6725, 2021 WL 666663 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021); id. (stating that evidence is material "when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different"); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 224 , 715 S.E.2

2019"The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide the defendant with any evidence in the prosecution's possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment." State v. Anderson , 407 S.C. 278 , 286, 754 S.E.2d 905 , 909 (Ct. App. 2014). "[A]n individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence was (1) favorable to the accused; (2) in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) suppressed by the State; and (4) material to the accused's guilt or innocence, or [impeachment evidence]." Id. at 287 , 754 S.E.2d at 909 .

2019"The Brady disclosure rule requires the prosecution to provide the defendant with any evidence in the prosecution's possession that may be favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment." State v. Anderson , 407 S.C. 278 , 286, 754 S.E.2d 905 , 909 (Ct. App. 2014). "[A]n individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence was (1) favorable to the accused; (2) in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) suppressed by the State; and (4) material to the accused's guilt or innocence, or [impeachment evidence]." Id. at 287 , 754 S.E.2d at 909 .

2021See State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 107, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 53 (2020) ("A Brady violation occurs when the evidence at issue is: 1) favorable to the accused; 2) in the possession of or known to the prosecution; 3) suppressed by the prosecution; and 4) material to the defendant's guilt or punishment."), cert denied, No. 20-6725, 2021 WL 666663 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021); id. (stating that evidence is material "when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different"); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 224 , 715 S.E.2

2021See State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 107, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 53 (2020) ("A Brady violation occurs when the evidence at issue is: 1) favorable to the accused; 2) in the possession of or known to the prosecution; 3) suppressed by the prosecution; and 4) material to the defendant's guilt or punishment."), cert denied, No. 20-6725, 2021 WL 666663 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021); id. (stating that evidence is material "when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different"); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 224 , 715 S.E.2

1999Gibson’s pre-trial Brady motion requested “[a]ll information of whatever form ... which tends to exculpate the defendant either through the potential impeachment of any State witness and all information of whatever form ... which may lead' to evidence which tends to exculpate the defendant ... or impeaching the credibility of any potential State’s witness____” In “specific request” and “general- or no-request” situations, “favorable evidence is material, and constitutional error results from its suppression by the government, if there is a reasonably probability that, had the evidence been dis

1999Gibson’s pre-trial Brady motion requested “[a]ll information of whatever form ... which tends to exculpate the defendant either through the potential impeachment of any State witness and all information of whatever form ... which may lead' to evidence which tends to exculpate the defendant ... or impeaching the credibility of any potential State’s witness____” In “specific request” and “general- or no-request” situations, “favorable evidence is material, and constitutional error results from its suppression by the government, if there is a reasonably probability that, had the evidence been dis

2026See State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); State v. Gathers, 295 S.C. 476, 481 , 369 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1988), aff'd, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defenda

2026See State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); State v. Gathers, 295 S.C. 476, 481 , 369 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1988), aff'd, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defenda

2025See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 453 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In a Brady analysis, information is not deemed 'material' if the defense discovers the information in time to adequately use it at trial."), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999); see generally State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 610 , 611 S.E.2d 283, 295 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding State's nondisclosure of transcript of witness's prior inconsistent statement did not undermine confidence in the outcome of defendant's trial where his counsel was "given the opportunity to review and use the inconsistent statement in

2025See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 453 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In a Brady analysis, information is not deemed 'material' if the defense discovers the information in time to adequately use it at trial."), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999); see generally State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 610 , 611 S.E.2d 283, 295 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding State's nondisclosure of transcript of witness's prior inconsistent statement did not undermine confidence in the outcome of defendant's trial where his counsel was "given the opportunity to review and use the inconsistent statement in

2021See Gibson, 334 S.C. at 524 , 514 S.E.2d at 324 (providing evidence must be "suppressed by the prosecution" to support a Brady violation claim); Hyman, 397 S.C. at 46 , 723 S.E.2d at 381 ("[I]t is undisputed that the solicitor disclosed the videotape to defense counsel.

2021See Gibson, 334 S.C. at 524 , 514 S.E.2d at 324 (providing evidence must be "suppressed by the prosecution" to support a Brady violation claim); Hyman, 397 S.C. at 46 , 723 S.E.2d at 381 ("[I]t is undisputed that the solicitor disclosed the videotape to defense counsel.

2020State v. Bryant, 372 S.C. 305, 316 , 642 S.E.2d 582, 588 (2007) (reviewing a Brady violation for an abuse of discretion).

2020State v. Bryant, 372 S.C. 305, 316 , 642 S.E.2d 582, 588 (2007) (reviewing a Brady violation for an abuse of discretion).

2026See, e.g., Fradella v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 325 S.C. 469, 480 , 482 S.E.2d 53, 58 (Ct. App. 1997) (reversing the trial court and holding that any discovery violations regarding the prosecutor's failure to turn over photographs and a complete booking report "were not material so as to warrant the sanction of dismissing the charge"); Gathers, 295 S.C. at 481 , 369 S.E.2d at 143 ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defendant of a fair trial.").4 5 III.

2026See, e.g., Fradella v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 325 S.C. 469, 480 , 482 S.E.2d 53, 58 (Ct. App. 1997) (reversing the trial court and holding that any discovery violations regarding the prosecutor's failure to turn over photographs and a complete booking report "were not material so as to warrant the sanction of dismissing the charge"); Gathers, 295 S.C. at 481 , 369 S.E.2d at 143 ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defendant of a fair trial.").4 5 III.

2026See State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); State v. Gathers, 295 S.C. 476, 481 , 369 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1988), aff'd, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defenda

2026See State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and (4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); State v. Gathers, 295 S.C. 476, 481 , 369 S.E.2d 140, 143 (1988), aff'd, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) ("The State's failure to disclose information warrants a reversal as a Brady violation only if the omission deprived the defenda

2021See State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 107, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 53 (2020) ("A Brady violation occurs when the evidence at issue is: 1) favorable to the accused; 2) in the possession of or known to the prosecution; 3) suppressed by the prosecution; and 4) material to the defendant's guilt or punishment."), cert denied, No. 20-6725, 2021 WL 666663 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021); id. (stating that evidence is material "when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different"); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 224 , 715 S.E.2

2021See State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98 , 107, 844 S.E.2d 49 , 53 (2020) ("A Brady violation occurs when the evidence at issue is: 1) favorable to the accused; 2) in the possession of or known to the prosecution; 3) suppressed by the prosecution; and 4) material to the defendant's guilt or punishment."), cert denied, No. 20-6725, 2021 WL 666663 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021); id. (stating that evidence is material "when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different"); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 224 , 715 S.E.2

2020United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969-73 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 481 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding a Brady violation where the government did not conduct a NCIC search of one of its witnesses despite assigning no bad motive on the government).

2020United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969-73 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 481 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding a Brady violation where the government did not conduct a NCIC search of one of its witnesses despite assigning no bad motive on the government).

2020United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969-73 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 481 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding a Brady violation where the government did not conduct a NCIC search of one of its witnesses despite assigning no bad motive on the government).

2020United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969-73 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 481 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding a Brady violation where the government did not conduct a NCIC search of one of its witnesses despite assigning no bad motive on the government).

2020Code Ann. § 14-25-105 (2017) (stating the circuit court does not conduct a de novo review); Suchenski, 374 S.C. at 15 , 646 S.E.2d at 880 ("In criminal cases, the appellate court reviews errors of law only."); id. ("Therefore, our scope of review is limited to correcting the circuit court's order for errors of law."); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 453 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Once a Brady violation is established, reversal is required."), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999); id. at 453-54, 503 S.E.2d at 220 ("Once a Rule 5[, SCRCrimP,] violation is shown, reversal is

2020Code Ann. § 14-25-105 (2017) (stating the circuit court does not conduct a de novo review); Suchenski, 374 S.C. at 15 , 646 S.E.2d at 880 ("In criminal cases, the appellate court reviews errors of law only."); id. ("Therefore, our scope of review is limited to correcting the circuit court's order for errors of law."); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 453 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Once a Brady violation is established, reversal is required."), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999); id. at 453-54, 503 S.E.2d at 220 ("Once a Rule 5[, SCRCrimP,] violation is shown, reversal is

2020Id. ("Adding due diligence, whether framed as an affirmative requirement of defense counsel or as an exception from the prosecutor’s duty, to the well-established three-pronged Brady inquiry would similarly be an unreasonable application of, and contrary to, Brady and its progeny.").

2020Id. ("Adding due diligence, whether framed as an affirmative requirement of defense counsel or as an exception from the prosecutor’s duty, to the well-established three-pronged Brady inquiry would similarly be an unreasonable application of, and contrary to, Brady and its progeny.").

2018As to Nagy's Brady and Rule 5 arguments: State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182, 186 , 720 S.E.2d 516, 518 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The appellate court's review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for errors of law."); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 223 , 715 S.E.2d 650, 655 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A defendant asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence the State failed to disclose was (1) favorable to the defendant, (2) in possession of or known to the State, (3) suppressed by the State, and (4) material to guilt or punishment."); State v. Proctor, 358 S.C. 417

2018As to Nagy's Brady and Rule 5 arguments: State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182, 186 , 720 S.E.2d 516, 518 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The appellate court's review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for errors of law."); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 223 , 715 S.E.2d 650, 655 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A defendant asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence the State failed to disclose was (1) favorable to the defendant, (2) in possession of or known to the State, (3) suppressed by the State, and (4) material to guilt or punishment."); State v. Proctor, 358 S.C. 417

2018As to Nagy's Brady and Rule 5 arguments: State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182, 186 , 720 S.E.2d 516, 518 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The appellate court's review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for errors of law."); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 223 , 715 S.E.2d 650, 655 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A defendant asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence the State failed to disclose was (1) favorable to the defendant, (2) in possession of or known to the State, (3) suppressed by the State, and (4) material to guilt or punishment."); State v. Proctor, 358 S.C. 417

2018As to Nagy's Brady and Rule 5 arguments: State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182, 186 , 720 S.E.2d 516, 518 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The appellate court's review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for errors of law."); State v. Frazier, 394 S.C. 213, 223 , 715 S.E.2d 650, 655 (Ct. App. 2011) ("A defendant asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence the State failed to disclose was (1) favorable to the defendant, (2) in possession of or known to the State, (3) suppressed by the State, and (4) material to guilt or punishment."); State v. Proctor, 358 S.C. 417

2018As to the motion for a new trial based on the alleged Brady violation: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court].

2018As to the motion for a new trial based on the alleged Brady violation: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court].

2017As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant "violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution"); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) (explaining to establish a Brady violation in South Carolina

2017As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant "violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution"); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 515 , 702 S.E.2d 395, 402 (Ct. App. 2010) (explaining to establish a Brady violation in South Carolina

2016See State v. Anderson, 407 S.C. 278, 287 , 754 S.E.2d 905, 909 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[A]n individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence was (1) favorable to the accused; (2) in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) suppressed by the State; and (4) material to the accused's guilt or innocence, or was impeaching." (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 419 (1995))); Hyman v. State, 397 S.C. 35, 45 , 723 S.E.2d 375, 380 (2012) ("Materiality of evidence is determined based on the reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had

2016See State v. Anderson, 407 S.C. 278, 287 , 754 S.E.2d 905, 909 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[A]n individual asserting a Brady violation must demonstrate the evidence was (1) favorable to the accused; (2) in the possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) suppressed by the State; and (4) material to the accused's guilt or innocence, or was impeaching." (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 419 (1995))); Hyman v. State, 397 S.C. 35, 45 , 723 S.E.2d 375, 380 (2012) ("Materiality of evidence is determined based on the reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had

1998See also State v. Penland, 275 S.C. 537, 539 , 273 S.E.2d 765, 766 (1981) (Under Brady, “the test is not whether the solicitor failed to reveal the information, but whether the omission deprived the defendant of a fair trial.”) (internal quotation omitted); Fradella v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 325 S.C. 469, 479 , 482 S.E.2d 53, 58 (Ct.App.1997) (“the mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.... ” “A defendant shows a Brady violation by demo

1998See also State v. Penland, 275 S.C. 537, 539 , 273 S.E.2d 765, 766 (1981) (Under Brady, “the test is not whether the solicitor failed to reveal the information, but whether the omission deprived the defendant of a fair trial.”) (internal quotation omitted); Fradella v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 325 S.C. 469, 479 , 482 S.E.2d 53, 58 (Ct.App.1997) (“the mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘materiality’ in the constitutional sense.... ” “A defendant shows a Brady violation by demo

2006However, in Anderson v. Leeke , 271 S.C. 435, 438 , 248 S.E.2d 120, 122 (1978), our supreme court held that the Brady rule “applies only to favorable evidence which the prosecution has but which is unavailable to the defendant.” Accordingly, matters of public record available to a diligent defendant do not fall within the scope of a Brady motion.

2006However, in Anderson v. Leeke , 271 S.C. 435, 438 , 248 S.E.2d 120, 122 (1978), our supreme court held that the Brady rule “applies only to favorable evidence which the prosecution has but which is unavailable to the defendant.” Accordingly, matters of public record available to a diligent defendant do not fall within the scope of a Brady motion.

2025See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 453 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In a Brady analysis, information is not deemed 'material' if the defense discovers the information in time to adequately use it at trial."), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999); see generally State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 610 , 611 S.E.2d 283, 295 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding State's nondisclosure of transcript of witness's prior inconsistent statement did not undermine confidence in the outcome of defendant's trial where his counsel was "given the opportunity to review and use the inconsistent statement in

2025See State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 453 , 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In a Brady analysis, information is not deemed 'material' if the defense discovers the information in time to adequately use it at trial."), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617 , 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999); see generally State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 610 , 611 S.E.2d 283, 295 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding State's nondisclosure of transcript of witness's prior inconsistent statement did not undermine confidence in the outcome of defendant's trial where his counsel was "given the opportunity to review and use the inconsistent statement in