 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williams1/5/2000
t found at his residence. Thus, even though the State wrongfully prevented Norman from physically testing the currency for paint and fish scales, favorable results from this testing would not lead a jury to entertain a reasonable doubt concerning Norman's guilt to the extent that its verdict was based on the remaining evidence.
Our reasoning in Norman applies to Williams' case. There was considerable evidence that had nothing to do with the video or audio tapes that could have led a jury to convict Williams for driving while intoxicated: his two breathalyzer tests of .236 and .230, a report from a citizen about an intoxicated man in a gray Ford pickup, and the corroboration of that report by Officer Kant. Even if the video had shown Williams conducting the field sobriety tests without any problems, his breathalyzer results alone could have been enough to convict him. Therefore, because it does not "affirmatively appear that the lost evidence would have created a reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's guilt," we REVERSE Judge Brown's decision to dismiss Williams' indictment.
Conclusion
When the state negligently loses or destroys evidence that "might have led the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt about [the defendant's guilt]" then the trial court is authorized to sanction the state. This standard was met in the present case. However, the higher standard articulated in Norman of when a court can dismiss a case due to lost or destroyed evidence was not met. Accordingly, the dismissal of the indictment is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|