State v. Jordan

Summary

The concurrence agrees with the judgment that the defendant's conviction for tampering with physical evidence could not stand and that any prosecutorial error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, but disagrees with the majority's refusal to decide whether the prosecutor acted improperly. It reasons that the prosecutor satisfied his disclosure obligation by informing the court and defense of agreements with two witnesses before their testimony, so the prosecutor had no additional duty to correct their misleading testimony before the jury. The concurrence also concludes that the defendant waived the claim by failing to use the disclosed information to impeach the witnesses. Justice Espinosa, concurring in part and in the judgment, would have corrected the lower court's contrary legal analysis.