 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ware8/29/1994
gligent, an oversight, or done in good faith, sanctions are inappropriate, but the defendant can still examine the prosecution's witnesses about the deficiencies of the investigation and argue the investigation's shortcomings against the standard of reasonable doubt. See Cooper, 281 Cal.Rptr. at 115 (in bank); Lolly, 611 A.2d at 961; Wells, 645 P.2d at 373; State v. Sadowski, 247 Mont. 63, 805 P.2d 537, 546 (Mont. 1991). The State is, after all, still charged with proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt see State v. Havatone, 159 Ariz. 597, 769 P.2d 1043, 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989); State v. Rowan, 703 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985), and in many cases, the failure to gather physical evidence at the crime scene impairs the State's ability to prove its case. See State v. Willcoxson, 156 Ariz. 343, 751 P.2d 1385, 1389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) (noting that the defendant was able to exploit the shortcomings of police photographs). We believe that this test strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the defendant's right to a fair trial while taking into account society's interest in having effective law enforcement, obtaining convictions for guilty defendants, and in insuring that the truth in criminal proceedings is revealed.
In the instant case, we conclude that the rock allegedly used to batter Martinez is material to Defendant's defense. Although it is a close call, we believe that there is a reasonable probability that the unavailability of the rock could affect the outcome of the case. However, much like the case in Bradley, the record before us indicates that the decision to photograph the rock, rather than collect it as physical evidence, was a judgment call and certainly not anything more than mere inadvertence or ordinary negligence on the part of the police. Thus, we hold that suppression of the evidence of the rock was inappropriate and that the trial court abused its discretion by suppressing this evidence.
In Conclusion, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred by applying the test outlined in Lovato and Chouinard, and by affirming the trial court order suppressing any evidence of the rock. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand this case for trial. During the trial on remand, Defendant can argue the shortcomings of the police investigation against the standard of reasonable doubt.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice
WE CONCUR:
RICHARD E. RANSOM, Justice
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|