Can a prosecutor be held liable on appeal for failing to disclose the existence of secret recordings?

In any event, we see no prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court expressly found that the recordings had been provided to defense counsel as soon as the prosecutor had become aware of their existence, and that their discovery was simply the result of the recordings being "lost in the shuffle." The court also expressly found that neither the prosecutor nor his office were "culpable in [any] way." Given the prosecutor's unchallenged explanation that he had learned of the existence of the recordings only the day before, and his explanation of the basis for the problem, there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion, entitling it to deference on appeal. (People v. Batts (2003) 30 Cal.4th 660, 682-683 [appellate court must give deference to the trial court's factual determinations and accept them if supported by substantial evidence].)