Cited by

See Turner, 137 S. Ct. at 1895 (concluding that where the record shows that 8 the undisclosed impeachment evidence was “largely cumulative of impeachment evidence petitioners already had and used at trial,” the “effect of the withheld evidence is insufficient to undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict”); (concluding that although a plea deal between a state’s witness and another county attorney’s office constituted impeachment evidence, the undisclosed impeachment evidence was not material wh

If we conclude that any prong is not sa tisfied, then we “need not consider the other prongs.”

Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213, 130 S. Ct. 721, 724 (2010) (per curiam); State v. Brown

373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196 -97

State v. Brown , , 620 (Minn. 2012).

State v. Brown , , 620 (Minn. 2012).

To establish a Brady violation, appellant must show: “(1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or it is impeaching; (2) the evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State; and (3) prejudice to the accused resulted.” (citing Pederson, d at 459).

“General testimony about the workings of a gang or the types of activities in which gangs engage is not considered testimony that reaches an ultimate legal conclusion, and is often necessary to prove that a crime was committed ‘for the benefit of a gang.’” State v. Brown , (citation omitted).

see also State v. Brown , (concluding that 7 admission of gang-expert testimony was not plain error because “[g]eneral testimony about the workings of a gang or the types of activities in which gangs engage is not considered testimony that reaches an ultimate legal conclusion” and such testimony “is often necessary to

(“If we conclude that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, we need not consider the other prongs.”).

d 609, 620 (Minn. 2012).

See State v. Brown , (“If [an appellate court] conclude[s] that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, [the court] need not consider the other prongs.”).

“To establish a Brady violation, it must be true that: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpator y or it is impeaching; (2) th e evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State; and (3) prejudice to the accused resulted.”

Robertson, d at 875; State v. Brown

(“If we conclude that any prong of the plain error analysis is not satisfied, we need not consider the other prongs.”).

“To establish a Brady violation, it must be true that: (1) the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or it is impeaching; (2) the evidence was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State; and (3) prejudice to the accused resulted.”