that there were no facts in evidence in this case which would make appellant not guilty of the greater crime, but guilty of the lesser. The record supports this determination and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested instruction. III. Denial of motion to suppress evidence as a discovery sanction was not abuse of discretion. Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion by not sanctioning the prosecution’s discovery violation by suppressing the pawn slip, and did not provide an adequate remedy for the late disclosure of the existence of the checkbooks, which were potentially exculpatory evidence, corroborating appellant’s version of the facts. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>). The imposition of sanctions for violations of
holding that the prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material either to guilt or to punishment holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the due process clause is violated if the prosecution fails to disclose material evidence that is favorable to a criminal defendant holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material holding that is a violation of due process for the prosecution to fail to disclose evidence favorable to an accused that is material to guilt or punishment