 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Cross10/28/2002
hat it would weaken the credibility of his own witness" but "would be exculpatory in the sense that it would be affirmatively favorable to his assertion of innocence." (Id. at p. 889.) It explained that " vidence that impeaches a defense witness . . . is not generally favorable to the accused; by reducing the credibility of the defendant's own witness, such impeachment reduces the probability that he will obtain a not guilty verdict." (185 F.3d at p. 893.) In contrast, the defendant in that case sought any cooperation agreements that a defense witness may have made with the government because it would have revealed the witness's motive for purportedly planting the evidence that incriminated defendant. It was thus "affirmative evidence of [the defendant's] own innocence." (Ibid.)
Thus, In re Sealed Case No. 99-3096, supra, 185 F.3d 887, is distinguishable on its facts and reasoning. We reject defendant's claim of Brady error here because the impeachment evidence of a prior felony conviction to be used against a defense witness was not evidence "favorable" to the defendant.
Furthermore, even if there was a Brady violation, it was not prejudicial. "To satisfy the prejudice component [under Brady], the withheld evidence must be `material'; that is, there must be `a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' [Citations.]" (In re Sealed Case No. 99-3096, supra, 185 F.3d at p. 892.) This is the same standard under which we found no prejudice with respect to the statutory discovery violation. Thus, for the same reasons that the violation of defendant's statutory discovery rights was not prejudicial, so, too, there was no prejudice to defendant from any Brady error.
V.
The abstract of judgment erroneously identifies count 1 as a violation of subdivision (b), rather than subdivision (a), of section 23152. We shall direct the trial court to correct this error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall correct the abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections.
We concur:
SIMS, Acting P.J.
MORRISON, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|