RAY THORNTON, JUSTICE.

Appellee, Gregory Larimore, was convicted of the first-degree murder of June Larimore, his wife, in 1990 and sentenced to life imprisonment. On May 26, 1992, we reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because the jury was impermissibly allowed to take excluded evidence into the jury room for deliberation. Larimore v. State, 309 Ark. 414, 833 S.W.2d 358 (1992). After retrial in 1993, appellee was again convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. On May 23, 1994, we affirmed the second conviction. Larimore v. State, 317 Ark. 111, 877 S.W.2d 570 (1994). Appellant then filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark.R.Crim.P. 37, based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. The State moved to dismiss, and appellee amended his petition to assert, in the alternative, that he was entitled to relief through a writ of error coram nobis. The trial court dismissed the motion, and appellee appealed to this court from that order of dismissal. On February 10, 1997, we affirmed the motion to dismiss the Rule 37 petition, but determined that the time limits of a Rule 37 petition are not applicable to a writ of error coram nobis and granted leave to the circuit court to determine whether a writ of error coram nobis should be issued. Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997); see also, Larimore v. State, 339 Ark. 167, 3 S.W.3d 680 (1999). On March 25, 1999, the Crittenden County Circuit Court granted appellee's writ of error coram nobis. The writ set aside appellee's 1993 conviction and ordered a new trial. It is from that order that the State brings this appeal. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm the trial court.

Shortly before noon on January 11, 1990, the body of June Larimore was found on the bedroom floor of her Blytheville home. She had been stabbed in the face, torso, arms, hands, and legs 134 times, apparently with a knife that had been wiped clean and replaced in a cutlery block in the kitchen. The body was nude except for panties rolled down around the hips in a manner which would be consistent with dragging the body by the hands from the bed to the floor. There was a deep stab wound in the pelvic area, but no corresponding cut in the panties. Samples from her vagina did not indicate that a sexual attack had occurred. Body temperature was 91.2 degrees at 12:10 p.m.

When the body was found, a nearby outside door was unlocked, the stereo sound system was still on, her watch and rings were still in place, and her open purse containing cash appeared not to have been disturbed. There was evidence that a violent struggle had occurred in the bedroom, and the bathroom sink appeared to have been wiped off, but the rest of the home appeared to be undisturbed except for the telephones. A telephone in the living room and a cordless phone in the hallway were unplugged, and the cord to a phone in the bedroom was severed. The sheets on the bed were soaked with blood, and some of appellee's clothes were found under the corpse.

Appellee, June Larimore's husband of one year, arrived for work at a family business at about 6:45 a.m. on the day June's body was discovered and worked routinely throughout the morning, showing no signs of stress or emotional upset. When contacted by the Blytheville police, he said that he and June had come home from a wake between nine and ten the previous evening. Appellee told the police that he had fallen asleep on a couch, woke up at 6:00 a.m., and left for work at the family farm supply business at 6:30 a.m. on the morning the body was found. In another statement, he said he awoke around 3:00 a.m. and got into bed with June, where he slept until 6:00 a.m. . Another version was that he woke up at 3:00 a.m., but decided not to disturb June by getting into the bed. He said that when he left home at 6:30 a.m., June was alive and asleep, wearing only a pair of panties. It was undisputed that appellee reported to work at the family business shortly after 6:45 a.m., that he had no blood on him, and that his appearance was normal.

No motive was established for the murder. The State's case was wholly circumstantial, structured on the theory that she was murdered between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. and, hence, was not alive when appellee left for work at 6:30 a.m. Thus, the time of death was a crucial element in the case. The State had to establish that the murder took place before appellee went to work. The State attempted to prove this element with the testimony of a forensic pathologist, Dr. Fahmy Malak, the former state medical examiner, who testified that the victim died as early as 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. on the morning the body was found. Appellee provided expert testimony that contradicted Dr. Malak's opinion of the time of death and suggested that death occurred between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. The preliminary state medical report of the time of death had shown the time as 7:00 a.m., but that line had been whited-out and the word "unknown" substituted. Copies of this original document showed the word "unknown" but did not reveal the whited-out alteration. Appellee was found guilty of June Larimore's murder in 1993. We affirmed appellee's conviction in 1994, and civil litigation ensued. During depositions for that litigation, it was discovered that prosecutorial misconduct had occurred. Specifically, it was discovered that the Blytheville Police Department knew that Dr. Malak had first concluded that the time of death was after appellee had left for work and this evidence was not given to the defense.

In 1997, this matter was once again before this court. See Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997). In order to test whether a writ of error coram nobis must be filed within the time limits applicable to a Rule 37 petition, the State stipulated that material exculpatory evidence had been withheld and that this prosecutorial misconduct was a violation of the due process requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963). The stipulation was conditioned upon the premise that even if the stipulated misconduct had occurred, the petition for relief was untimely; and the stipulation was to be withdrawn if the court decided the petition was not time-barred. On February 10, 1997, we affirmed the dismissal of appellee's Rule 37 petition, but determined that the time limits for a Rule 37 motion are not applicable to a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.

We held that due diligence is required in making application for error coram nobis relief, and that because appellee's petition for a writ of error coram nobis was not untimely, we granted leave to the circuit court to determine whether a writ should be issued. The trial court conducted a thorough and careful review of appellee's petition. At the conclusion of this review, the trial court granted appellee's petition and the State appealed.

The State asserts two points for reversal. Because we consider the State's second point on appeal to be the threshold issue we will address it before determining whether the trial court properly granted appellee's petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The State argues that the trial court erred when it found that the concealment of exculpatory evidence constituted a Brady violation. As we consider whether the State's withholding of evidence was a Brady violation, it is useful to identify the evidence that the State is challenging. Specifically the trial court found the following suppressed evidence:

1. Dr. Fahmy Malak's opinion given to Captain Hill of the Blytheville Police Department on January 12, 1990, that the time of death of June Larimore was "six, six to seven" o'clock.

2. Captain Hill informing Dr. Malak on January 12, 1990, that if the time of death was "six, six to seven" o'clock then appellee had an iron-clad alibi. Specifically, Dr. Malak told Captain Hill that he needed to look at the husband. In response to this advice, Officer Hill told Dr. Malak that appellee had an iron-clad alibi if the time of death was "six, six to seven" o'clock.

3. A taped phone conversation between Chief Christie and Dr. Malak on January 12, 1990, concerning the time of June Larimore's death. Chief Christie of the Blytheville Police Department spoke with Dr. Malak on January 12, 1990, after Dr. Malak had spoken with Captain Hill, and Dr. Malak, without reviewing additional evidence, changed his opinion of June Larimore's time of death to earlier in the morning, before six o'clock. Specifically, the conversation revealed that Chief Christie knew that Dr. Malak had spoken with Captain Hill earlier in the day. When Chief Christie asked Dr. Malak for his opinion of the time of June Larimore's death, he gave an opinion of before six, early in the morning. At the time this opinion was given, Dr. Malak had not seen any photographs or the video of the crime scene.

4. A taped conversation between Chief Christie and Captain Hill on January 12, 1990, prior to the completion of the police investigation of June Larimore's death in which they refer to appellee as "a son of a bitch" and in which Captain Hill states "we've got the son of a bitch."

5. A demand made on January 12, 1990, by the Blytheville Police Department for a warrant for appellee's arrest before the department had completed its investigation. At the time the warrant was requested, Chief Christie and Captain Hill knew that Dr. Malak had given an opinion that June Larimore's time of death was "six, six to seven" o'clock and that after talking with Captain Hill, without reviewing additional evidence, Dr. Malak had changed his opinion. When the prosecutors refused to provide the arrest warrant the police department accused one of the prosecutors of favoritism.

The trial court, after identifying the exculpatory evidence that had been withheld from appellee, explained the ramifications of withholding such evidence. It found that the evidence would have: (1) been beneficial to appellee in framing questions to potential jurors in voir dire; (2) provided powerful ammunition to appellee for use during the cross examination of Captain Hill, Chief Christie, and Dr. Malak; (3) been useful in establishing biases of the Blytheville Police Department and Dr. Malak; and (4) provided valuable information for appellee to use during opening statement and closing argument. The trial court concluded that the suppressed evidence was material to the guilt and punishment and that if the evidence had been disclosed, there was a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different.

The Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963) held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Id. In Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S.Ct. 1936, (1999) the Court revisited Brady and explained its implications. It noted:

We have since [the decision in Brady] held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence. Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Moreover, the rule encompasses evidence "known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor." In order to comply with Brady, therefore, "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in this case, including the police."

Strickler, supra. (internal citations omitted). The Court, in Strickler, also outlined the three elements of a true Brady violation. These components include:

(1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.

Strickler, supra.

Applying this analysis to the case before us, we hold that the trial court correctly determined that the concealment of the exculpatory evidence constituted a Brady violation. First, we note that the evidence concealed was favorable to appellee both because it was exculpatory and because it was impeaching. Specifically, if the withheld evidence had been known to appellee his alibi would have been supported by the State's expert witness and his testimony as to the time of death would have been contradicted. Moreover, the evidence could have been used to impeach Dr. Malak, Captain Hill, and Chief Christie. Additionally, appellee's theory that the police were targeting him as the perpetrator of the crime without properly investigating the murder would have been bolstered. Accordingly, this evidence was favorable to appellee.

Next, we address the question whether exculpatory evidence was suppressed by the State willfully. This evidence was known by the Blytheville Police Department since 1990 and only after two trials was it provided to appellee. We note that at trial, the trial judge, Judge Pearson, had issued a discovery order requiring the State to provide appellee with all evidence relevant to June Larimore's time of death. Although the prosecution may not have been specifically aware of the exculpatory evidence, we have stated that information held by the police is imputed to the prosecution. Lewis v. State, 286 Ark. 372, 691 S.W.2d 864 (1985). We conclude that the evidence was willfully suppressed by the State.

Finally, to establish a valid Brady claim it must be shown that appellee was prejudiced by the suppression of the evidence. We agree with the trial court's findings that appellee was prejudiced by the withheld exculpatory evidence and that the suppressed evidence would have shown that Dr. Malak's opinion as to the time of death, which had at one time supported appellee's alibi, had been influenced and changed to assist the police and that this was not known at the time of trial by the trial court. We conclude that the trial court's finding that "if said evidence had been disclosed to the defendant, there is a reasonable probability that the results of the proceedings would have been different" is not erroneous, and affirm.

Because the suppression of the evidence by the State meets the elements outlined in Strickler, and because the evidence was material to the outcome of the trial, we hold that the trial court correctly found that a Brady violation had occurred.

The gravamen of the other point on appeal is that even if a Brady violation was shown to exist, that violation did not support the granting of a writ of error coram nobis, and a new trial. The State argues that the standards for error coram nobis are higher than those which must be met to find a Brady violation and that the evidence presented to the trial court did not rise to the level required to grant appellee's petition for the writ and for a new trial.

We recognize that a writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval. Literally, coram nobis means our court, in our presence, before us. Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984). The essence of the writ of error coram nobis is that it is addressed to the very court that renders the judgment where injustice is alleged to have been done, rather than to an appellate or other court. Black's Law Dictionary 337 (6th ed. 1990). The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. Pitts v. State, 336 Ark. 580, 986 S.W.2d 407 (1999). We have held that a writ of error coram nobis was available to address certain errors of the most fundamental nature that are found in one of four categories: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal. Pitts, supra.

The trial court has discretion to grant or deny a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Penn, supra. The petitioner seeking the writ has a heavy burden to meet. Id. On review we determine whether the lower court abused its discretion in granting the writ and a new trial. State v. Scott, 289 Ark. 234, 710 S.W.2d 212 (1986). We have outlined the following guidelines for trial courts to consider when determining whether to grant a writ of error coram nobis:

(1) The function of the writ of coram nobis is to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if it had been known to the trial court and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not brought forward before rendition of judgment;

(2) Coram nobis proceedings are attended by a strong presumption that the judgment of conviction is valid. The court is not required to accept at face value the allegations of the petition;

(3) Due diligence is required in making application for relief, and, in the absence of a valid excuse for delay, the petition will be denied; and

(4) The mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of specific facts [relied] upon and not merely state conclusions as to the nature of such facts.

Pitts, supra. If it has merit, by all means a writ of error coram nobis should be granted; if the petitioner fails in his burden of proof, then at least a hearing will have resulted. Penn, supra.

We note that at different times throughout our jurisprudence we have used different phrases to articulate the standard for determining whether a petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be granted. For example, the language of Pitts, supra, articulated the very stringent standard that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be granted when an issue is not addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known to the trial court. Id. For this proposition we cited Penn, supra, and Troglin v. State, 257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975). The language used in those two cases is not identical. In Penn, Justice Hickman explained that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be accepted only if there is an error of fact extrinsic to the record " which might have resulted in a different verdict." Id. at 573, 670 S.W.2d at 428. In contrast, according to the language of Troglin, as well as Pitts, the writ of error coram nobis secures relief from a judgment if the error of fact extrinsic to the record " would have prevented it rendition." Troglin at 645, 519 S.W.2d at 741. We now conclude that both the "might have resulted" phrase and the "would have prevented" phrase turn upon the question of whether there was a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered, or would have been prevented, had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed at trial. We note that the Supreme Court has adopted a similar standard for Brady violations in Strickler. Specifically, we hold that in our review of the granting of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in this case and all future cases we will determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the judgment of conviction would not have been rendered, or would have been prevented, had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed at trial.

In the case before us, the trial court held five days of hearings consisting of numerous witnesses on appellee's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, reviewed briefs submitted by the parties, and reviewed the transcripts of appellee's two prior trials and pretrials. In its twelve-page opinion, which incorporated by reference a 228 page letter opinion, the trial court found that the prosecution suppressed and withheld favorable evidence from appellee. The trial court found that "the time of death was the sole issue of fact presented by the evidence" and the exculpatory evidence which was withheld related to this issue. The trial court also found that:

After throughly reviewing all of the old evidence in this case, and the new evidence withheld by the prosecution from the petitioner, the court finds the suppressed evidence to be material to the guilt and punishment and that if the said evidence had been disclosed, there was a reasonable probability that the results of the proceedings would have been different. Also judgment in this case was rendered while there existed facts which would have prevented its rendition if they had been known to the trial court.

Establishing the time of death was the key to the State's case against appellee at trial. The State's theory was that if the murder occurred prior to 6:30 a.m., appellee was the only person who could have committed the crime and used Dr. Malak's opinion as to the time of death to establish this theory. The exculpatory evidence, which had been concealed by the State and was unknown to appellee through no fault or negligence of his own, supported appellee's alibi and contradicted the State's only expert witness. Dr. Malak's original opinion as to the time of death was about the time at which appellee was reporting to work. After Dr. Malak was informed by Captain Hill that appellee had an alibi for that time, Dr. Malak, without reviewing additional evidence, changed his opinion. Because this case involves material exculpatory evidence withheld by the prosecutor, a situation in which we have previously identified as worthy of error coram nobis relief, and because there is a reasonable probability that the judgment would not have been rendered if this withheld evidence had been known at the time of entry of the judgment, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and ordering a new trial, and we affirm the trial court's order.

We note that this decision does not impose restrictions on the use of other expert opinions or presentation of other theories relating to the question of guilt or time of death nor does this decision limit the production of additional evidence that may be useful in the development of the issues that may arise in appellee's new trial.

Affirmed.