Skip to main content
· 8/3/2020

Peo v. Lowe

Citations

  • 2020 COA 116

Syllabus

Defendant escaped from parole supervision, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. Officers Mitchell and Duda located and approached defendant and informed him that he was under arrest. When Duda moved to handcuff defendant, defendant resisted. Mitchell attempted to use a taser on defendant, but defendant obtained the taser during the struggle. The altercation ended when Mitchell shot defendant three times. At trial, both officers testified that, during the scuffle, they saw defendant holding a knife, and Mitchell testified that he feared defendant was going to stab Duda, who had fallen to the ground during the struggle. Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of first degree assault of a peace officer, two counts of resisting arrest, two counts of menacing, and prohibited use of a stun gun. At a post-trial hearing, defendant was adjudicated a habitual criminal. The court sentenced defendant to two consecutive 64-year prison terms in Department of Corrections' custody for the first degree assault convictions. Defendant was sentenced concurrently for his remaining convictions. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by refusing to disclose Mitchell's and Duda's personnel and internal investigation files. Duda's and Mitchell's testimony was the prosecution's only evidence that defendant threatened the officers with a knife, and the officers' credibility was central to defendant's defense. The Court of Appeals reviewed the sealed personnel and internal investigation files and determined that Duda's files contained no relevant or material information. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in not disclosing Duda's files. However, Mitchell's files contained information from professional misconduct and internal investigations related to his credibility. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by not disclosing to the defense that information in Mitchell's files where it was found or alleged that

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.