 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Epps6/27/1986
ra, 179 Cal. App. 3d 566.)
Trombetta articulated a more tolerant standard than Hitch. The essential difference between the two cases is that Hitch adopts a relatively neutral
attitude toward the materiality of the evidence (i.e., (1) did it exist and (2) is it possible that the evidence could have benefitted the accused). (People v. Hitch, supra, 12 Cal. 3d at p. 649.) Trombetta, on the other hand, imposes a significantly different test of materiality -- "evidence must . . . possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed . . ." (California v. Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 489 [81 L.Ed.2d at p. 422, 104 S.Ct. at p. 2534]) -- while remaining neutral on the issue of the duty to preserve evidence, preferring instead to rely on prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
It should be noted that in two recent decisions the Second District has summarily dismissed the contention that Trombetta displaced Hitch as the controlling authority in California.
In People v. Roehler (1985) 167 Cal. App. 3d 353 [213 Cal. Rptr. 353], a second autopsy was performed on the defendant's wife and child after a tip to the police suggested that they had not drowned accidentally as earlier believed. The defendant objected, claiming that Hitch required preservation of the bodies for subsequent defense analysis. In rejecting this claim the court considered both the separate jurisdictional authority of coroners to examine accidental deaths and dispose of bodies, and the considerable historical, social and religious implications of retaining corpses as evidence. (167 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 372-381.) The court, however, rejected Trombetta as controlling, reasoning that the federal rules pertaining to preservation of evidence have not been fully addressed. (167 Cal. App. 3d at p. 383.) We agree that the duty and methodology to preserve evidence were not definitively stated in Trombetta, but the Trombetta test of materiality has been clearly stated and does apply to these cases.
Likewise, in People v. Lawrence (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 1069 [218 Cal. Rptr. 345], the Second District held Trombetta not controlling on the issue of the duty to preserve. In that case a murder suspect turned herself in after 11 years of hiding. The ballistics reports on the weapon used and bullets recovered from the victim's body were available and admitted. However, the actual bullets themselves had been lost or misplaced. The court affirmed the conviction and concluded that the "defendant is solely to blame for the long delay in her trial, the application of sanctions would be inappropriate and a miscarriage of justice." (172 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1078.) The court, however, in dealing with the issue of preservation of the bullets, considered the problem of the application of Hitch or Trombetta. The court followed the reasoning of Roehler and determined that "'the problem of developing rules about preservation of evidence has yet to be fully addressed on the federal level.'" (172 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1077.) Following this determination, the court in Lawrence then applied the Hitch standard of materiality.
(Ibid.) We disagree with the ability to apply Hitch to the materiality analysis of lost or unavailable evidence. Having concluded that Hitch is founded on federal principles, it must follow that Trombetta is the law. While we agree that Trombetta leaves open the duty to preserve and the analysis of methods employed by the state in doing so, the standard for consi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|