Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment due to a Brady violation

No question identified. : Boe Pen) W4i3o eaStio | oromnke. Was accursed of brenda ling a feaiilon DOCKS. famate tlt, A~ Seatbelt While the tila ofthe \ubece, b@lag driven betiuleen prisons. “That Yatote Gad. the tio correction i? OLE cers Sa the Vin iapere, tb hy iline ses ot fh Sc 3 é 2 LA ToT Pe. Teo grignins CG 1 . . ; < Prosscisdor gave, ME, Brot SS atte) aivedical report deseribtia the absence cf. © , ‘ ’ sat OO b2trVlak ante TU The Ota Te — Cot Galan gy a TiAm £¢ 7 1 Carb LOI CTS i , ‘ eo ‘ ihe .aesSence oF Micarey Midisla Thoensdth he ase.-n-Chie Defense SUAD SON COM Ck n€ oh 1 2 is Ss a Hh these te re abere. [Sez atigaS tha Monired Wis pbility g efend « fy. . ; . . sad Ve da And asked that dhe Fadicttent be dtomeSoSeds. “Thi 1G t cenied Lat 4 . ” 4 ¢ i e ; . e oa od Fa RIM TAO fect Mo Beynlee of both cosy thharyed tr the <n hen ts> buat convicted Wr caf esser Tacluded offense, Me. fry aaaeals: The. cuse sto . Se Dil d bd inledre 45 dete < Lor Bry _V, Mesrelond (S73 AS £2 IG oe, . Q B { 2 f} e ° way CRaIxy-2D) Va AAJ ith In ad the MOT 2BAT He qi (ec SER 4: sw fe K brial@ “The trial. orart-did pot expre rule. that the lare, disclosure of the Pecan ~ LIA brady Wolatory thecaah ¢ ywrered Cerense wnsel A Petecy Shact of clis7s OF the tndicttent, which An $-€ CUR te dee lone 5 . geo a e uli | . ‘ a yn parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. { ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all