Harrison

*706 The Brady rule ( Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ( Brady )) is over 50 years old. It is alive, well, and as we explain, it is self executing. There need be no motion, request, or objection to trigger disclosure. The prosecution has a sua sponte duty to provide Brady information.

Clifford Harrison appeals his convictions by jury of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction (count 1; Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1) ) 1 and making criminal threats (count 4; § 422, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted a prior strike *707 conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j); 1170.12) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to prison for 11 years. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial after the prosecution failed to disclose a video recording of appellant invoking his right to remain silent during a Miranda interrogation. ( Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 , 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 .) Notwithstanding the video recording, the arresting officer testified that appellant waived his Miranda rights and admitted using a firearm to threaten the victim.

We reverse the conviction…