In re Pers. Restraint of Stenson
, No. 83606-0Dissent by J.M. Johnson, J.
Brady v. Maryland
, 373U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963).
No. 83606-0J.M. JOHNSON, J.(dissenting)—I respectfully disagree withthemajority opinion in this case and would deny Darold Stenson’s fifth and sixthpersonal restraint petitions. A jury heard weeks of testimony and in 1994unanimously found Stenson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of theaggravated murder of his wife and business partner. This court has reviewedand affirmed both guilt and sentence over the intervening 18 years. The trial judge, Judge Williams, on two separate remandsfrom this court, held that thealleged nondisclosed
evidence here did not meet the requirement of prejudice. Based on these findings, we must conclude that the elementsof the
test are not met. Accordingly, we should deny Stenson’s fifth andsixth personal restraint petitions and uphold his conviction. The interestsof finality in justice to provide peace for the families of Stenson’s victimsargue