Abdullah v. State

• Jurisdiction: Idaho,United States
• Parties: Azad Haji ABDULLAH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
• Citation: 539 P.3d 947
• Decision Date: 05 December 2023
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48677

539 P.3d 947

Azad Haji ABDULLAH, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

Docket No. 48677

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2023 Term.

Opinion Filed: December 5, 2023

Silvey Law Office, Ltd., Boise, for Appellant, Azad Haji Abdullah.Greg Silvey argued.

Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent.L. LaMont Anderson argued.

BRODY, Justice.

This is an appeal from the summary dismissal of Azad Abdullah's second successive petition for post-conviction relief.In 2004, Abdullah was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of his wife, and given consecutive prison sentences for first-degree arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and felony injury to a child.Abdullah's petition alleges two alternative claims: (1)the State suppressed material impeachment information pertaining to its lead investigator in violation of Abdullah's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215(1963); and (2) Abdullah's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to discover and use the same alleged Brady information against the investigator at trial.Abdullah argues the district court erred in dismissing his claims because neither is time-barred or otherwise procedurally barred by Idaho Code section 19-2719(5), and neither claim fails on the merits.Abdullah also challenges the district court's denial of discovery to factually support his claims.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's summary dismissal of both claims in Abdullah's petition.First, we conclude the claims are time-barred under Idaho Code section 19-2719(5) because Abdullah's prior counsel reasonably could or should have known back in 2007 about the claims Abdullah now raises.Second, and in the alternative, we conclude that even if the factual allegations in the petition are true, and the Brady information could have been used to impeach the lead investigator at trial or sentencing, the Brady information is neither material to the guilt or penalty phase, nor was trial counsel's alleged failure to investigate the Brady information prejudicial.As explained below, the impeachment information primarily consists of details flowing from an affair between the lead investigator on the case and the former second-chair prosecutor.Even if the lead investigator had been impeached with the details, the record contains nothing to support a conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial or sentencing phase would have been different.Because we reach these alternative conclusions by assuming the truth of the factual allegations in the Amended Petition, Abdullah's challenge to the district court's discovery ruling is moot.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2004, after a trial spanning roughly two months, Abdullah was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of his wife, Angela Abdullah("Angie"), and given consecutive sentences totaling eighty years in prison for first-degree arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and felony injury to a child.In short, during the guilt phase, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that "Abdullah premeditated the murder of his wife, placed a bag over her head to asphyxiate her, poured gasoline throughout their home, and left three children inside a home engulfed in flames to cover up his actions."State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386, 495, 348 P.3d 1, 110(2015).During the penalty phase, the same jury found the existence of aggravating circumstances, and after hearing from "[n]umerous witnesses" who "testified on Abdullah's behalf[,]"id . at 489–90, 348 P.3d at 104–05, found that "all mitigating circumstances were not sufficiently compelling that the death penalty would be unjust[.]"Id . at 464, 348 P.3d at 79.

Relevant to this appeal, Abdullah filed his third (second successive)petition for post-conviction relief on September 9, 2020.Roughly one month later, Abdullah filed an amended petition("Amended Petition"), which was accepted by the district court.Abdullah's Amended Petition advances two alternative claims for post-conviction relief: (1)the prosecution committed a Brady violation when it allegedly suppressed material impeachment information related to the lead investigative officer in Abdullah's case, Tod Littlefield; and (2) Abdullah's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to investigate and discover the same alleged impeachment information against Littlefield for use at trial.None of the alleged Brady information directly relates to the physical evidence or testimony connecting Abdullah to the charged crimes at trial—but instead flows from the details of an affair between Littlefield and the former second-chair prosecutor on Abdullah's criminal case, Erika Klein.Abdullah categorized the alleged Brady information into six items of information, all of which are related to the affair:

(1)"Littlefield and Klein performed sex acts in the workplace and while both were on duty, including in the ‘war room’ at the Ada County Prosecutor's Office, where evidence from the Abdullah case was stored, as well as in Littlefield's squad car and Klein's office";

(2)"Littlefield repeatedly defied direct orders from his superiors before and during trial, including from the police chief, to break off all contact with Klein";

(3)"Littlefield had harassed and stalked Klein after she ended their relationship, for which Klein's husband—who was a Deputy Sheriff—wished to press charges against Littlefield";

(4)"Internal Affairs opened an investigation into the relationship on August 25, 2004";

(5)"Command Staff of both the BPD and the Ada County Sheriff's Office had concerns that the affair would generate workplace violence, since both Littlefield and Klein's husband were armed"; and

(6)"Littlefield was suspended from duty on October 23, 2004, in the midst of trial."

On August 25, 2004, after Klein's husband confronted her about the affair, and roughly fourteen days before the start of jury selection for Abdullah's criminal trial, Littlefield and Klein formally, but separately, disclosed the affair to their respective superiors.Klein's superiors removed her as second-chair prosecutor the following day.Abdullah , 158 Idaho at 412 n.9, 348 P.3d at 27 n.9.Littlefield told his superiors that he would not contact Klein, and he was allowed to remain on the case.On September 3, 2004, five days before the start of jury selection, the lead prosecutor for Abdullah's criminal case, Patrick Owen, disclosed the fact of the affair to Abdullah's trial counsel.Id .One day before jury selection, Abdullah's trial counsel moved for a continuance to investigate the affair, and how it might have impacted the case.Id .The district court declined to continue the trial but permitted Abdullah's trial counsel to investigate and depose Littlefield on the issue if desired.Jury selection began the next day, September 8, 2004.Abdullah's trial counsel did not investigate the details of the affair or depose Littlefield.

Before opening statements, the district court ordered personnel materials from the Boise Police Department, Internal Affairs, and Ombudsman Office to be submitted to it for an in camera review so that it could examine the records for discoverable Brady information.Relevant to this appeal, the materials submitted for review apparently included Littlefield's personnel file and internal affairs file.The district court explained that it reviewed all of the materials in camera by looking for "incidents suggesting basic dishonesty, a pattern of mishandling evidence and disciplinary actions involving falsifying evidence."Four days before opening statements, on September 23, 2004, the district court concluded in a written decision that the reviewed files did not contain any Brady information.

Over the course of the trial, the State presented physical evidence and testimony demonstrating Abdullah's guilt.The evidence showed that leading up to the underlying murder, Abdullah and Angie had a "troubled" marriage with disagreements over Abdullah's religious studies, his wanting to move the family out of the country, and the couple's finances, which resulted in Angie contemplating divorce.Id . at 406, 348 P.3d at 21.According to Abdullah, divorce is "extremely frowned upon in Islam, and ... just doesn't happen."Id .Discussing the differences between their cultures, Abdullah also told a co-worker "it was acceptable to kill one's wife or to have the wife killed in his culture if she cheated on the husband."Id .

Less than two months before the crimes occurred, Abdullah purchased an insurance policy to cover vending machines used by his and Angie's part-time business, which were stored in the garage of their home.Id ."Although [Abdullah] was storing the vending machines at home, he was interested in only fire insurance and not theft insurance."Id .On October 4, 2002, the day before the crimes, Abdullah drove to Salt Lake City, Utah, with his five-year-old son.Id . at 407, 348 P.3d at 22.Before he left, Abdullah purchased seventeen gallons of gasoline at a Chevron station in Boise, Idaho, and five gallons of gasoline for a gas can.Id .Once in Salt Lake City, Abdullah purchased two red plastic gas cans, and roughly twenty minutes later, purchased an adult black cape and mask from a Halloween store even though the Abdullah family did not observe Halloween for religious reasons.Id .Later that day, Abdullah purchased twenty-two and a half gallons of gasoline from a 7-Eleven in Salt Lake City.Id .This was more than the tank capacity of Abdullah's van, "which could hold a little more than twenty-one gallons[.]"Id ."No one saw Abdullah in Salt Lake City from approximately 8:00 p.m. on October 4, 2002, to 7:00 a.m. on October 5, 2002."Id .

The day before the crimes, October 4, 2002, Angie's daughter from a previous marriage had a friend...