The state habeas court held that an oral exculpatory statement, made by a complaining witness to a state law enforcement officer, cannot constitute Brady material unless it is committed to writing or otherwise recorded:

Because Petitioner failed to establish the victim's alleged second statement was nothing other than an oral statement to law enforcement, Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden to prove the State possessed the statement. Therefore, Petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish the favorable evidence was suppressed because the State cannot suppress something it does not possess.

The question presented is whether Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), applies to exculpatory oral statements made to the State that the State does not memorialize or otherwise record.

Whether Brady v. Maryland applies to exculpatory oral statements made to the State that the State does not memorialize or otherwise record