The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest court for criminal matters in Texas, decided State v. Heath on June 12, 2024. In Heath, the court held that upon request, prosecutors must turn over evidence that is possessed by law enforcement, even if the prosecutor is not aware that law enforcement has the evidence. If this evidence is not turned over, it may be suppressed by the court, meaning that it would not be admissible in the case.
Brady v. Maryland:
In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution is obligated to turn over any evidence “favorable to an accused.” This case means that it is a violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights if the prosecution has but does not produce material evidence that is favorable to the defendant. The prosecution has a duty to give this evidence to the defense during pretrial discovery, regardless of whether the defense requests it. If the prosecution does not follow the Brady rule, a court may declare a mistrial or overturn a conviction.
The Michael Morton Act:
In Texas, defendants’ access to information held by the prosecution is expanded beyond Brady evidence. Prosecutors in state court in Texas must follow the Michael Morton Act, which was named after a man whose conviction for murder was overturned after DNA testing connected another man to the crime. The prosecution in Morton’s case had withheld evidence that could have pointed to his innocence.
The Michael Morton Act, article 39.14(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, states “as soon as practicable after receiving a timely request” the prosecution must make all evidence in their file available to the defendant. Under Brady, the Texas prosecutors are still obligated to turn over all potentially exonerating evidence without a request, but the Michael Morton Act also creates a duty for Texas prosecutors to turn over all other evidence upon request.
Prior to the holding in Heath, Texas courts generally held that this applies only to evidence in the prosecution’s possession. However, as a result of the Heath ruling, this now applies to evidence that law enforcement agencies possess.
Facts of the Case:
In State v. Heath, days before trial, the prosecutor found out that a 911 record from the incident existed. The prosecutor immediately informed the defense attorney. The defense argued that this 911 call was improperly withheld and should be excluded because the Sheriff’s Office had access to the record long before the trial. The prosecution argued that because they informed the defense of the record as soon as they found out, they satisfied the “as soon as practicable” requirement of the Michael Morton Act. The trial court agreed with the defense, and excluded the 911 call.
On appeal, the intermediate appellate court found that the 911 call was indeed in the possession of the state, as the Sheriff’s Office had access to the record. The court held that because the prosecution should have “look[ed] to see if there is something responsive to the request,” the trial court was right to exclude the evidence.
At the Court of Criminal Appeals, the prosecution argued that “the state” under the Michael Morton Act should only refer to the prosecuting attorney and that the court should not be able to exclude evidence unless it was withheld in bad faith. However, the court disagreed. The court held that the defense properly requested discovery under the Michael Morton Act, and the prosecution failed to turn over the 911 call, which was evidence in the possession of the state, “as soon as practicable.” Therefore, excluding the evidence was proper.
Spanish 
English