Opinion
A-12668
01-25-2023
CHRISTOPHER R. STACY, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Emily L. Jura, Assistant Public Defender, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
This is a summary disposition issued under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(a). Summary dispositions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d).
Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Trial Court No. 1KE-13-00753 CR Ketchikan, William B. Carey, Judge.
Emily L. Jura, Assistant Public Defender, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Harbison, Judge, and Clark, District Court Judge. [*]
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
In Stacy v. State, this Court held that prosecutors have an affirmative duty to learn of Brady or Giglio material contained in otherwise confidential law enforcement personnel records. We remanded Stacy's case to the superior court to ensure that the relevant personnel files were "reviewed for any impeachment evidence that is significant enough that it could be material in Stacy's case."
Stacy v. State, 500 P.3d 1023, 1026-27 (Alaska App. 2021); see also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
Stacy, 500 P.3d at 1040.
In response to Stacy, the Alaska Department of Law developed statewide policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the duty recognized in Stacy. (The procedures were modeled after systems that had previously been in place but were not statewide.)
These procedures were then followed in Stacy's case. In addition, the assistant district attorney assigned to Stacy's case contacted the relevant law enforcement agencies directly, who confirmed that they had no Brady/Giglio information to report about any of the officers testifying in the case. The assistant district attorney also separately confirmed with the Alaska Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory that there was no BradylGiglio information in the testifying laboratory technician's file.
In the proceedings before the superior court, Stacy objected to various parts of the Department of Law's new procedures, arguing that they were inadequate to ensure compliance with the State's Brady/Giglio obligations under Stacy.
The superior court issued a nine-page written order rejecting these criticisms and finding that the new statewide procedures were sufficient to comply with the requirements under Stacy. Stacy now challenges that ruling.
On appeal, Stacy renews his prior objections to the State's policies. But the long-term efficacy of the Department of Law's policies is not before us in this appeal. Rather, as the State points out, our role is limited to reviewing the actions that the government took in Stacy's case and whether those actions were sufficient to satisfy due process in the context of his case. The record makes clear that the prosecutor in Stacy's case specifically reached out to the different agencies to ensure that there was no Brady/Giglio material in any of the relevant personnel files. We agree with the superior court that Stacy has failed to show that these actions were insufficient. Nor has he shown that he was personally prejudiced by any of the alleged deficiencies in the Department of Law's newly adopted policies.
Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
[*]Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).