 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony v. State5/14/2003
e videotape critical evidence necessary to ensure a fair and impartial trial, it represented the best and only exculpatory evidence available to appellant. He asserts that the lack of disclosure by the Hot Springs City Attorney's office and subsequent destruction of the videotape, whether intentional or not, was tantamount to a denial of a fair trial. Appellant claims that there is no precedent in Arkansas from which to determine if the destruction of such relevant evidence is grounds for dismissal of the charge, rather than simply a retrial - relief that appellant admits has already been granted to him.
Appellant submits that the facts in the instant case are similar to those in Mitchell v. State, 295 Ark. 341, 750 S.W.2d 936 (1988), where the state could not produce a tape recording of the defendant's statement because it had been returned to a pool of tapes and reused. In Mitchell, the supreme court determined that because of the overwhelming guilt of the accused and the lack of bad faith being shown against the police department, the unavailability of the tape was not reversible error. Appellant distinguishes those facts from the instant case, however, in that he claims there is no "overwhelming evidence of guilt," rather the only evidence was a swearing match between Officer Reynolds and appellant.
He states there is an absolute constitutional and legal duty that a prosecutor disclose evidence prior to trial, and that such evidence must be made available prior to trial for the use of a defendant in preparing for trial. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 17.1 (2002). Appellant does concede that the prosecutor, the Hot Springs City Attorney in this case, did not know about the evidence prior to trial; however, he contends that the negligence of Officer Reynolds and the police department in destroying the evidence should be imputed to the prosecution. The State also refers to Rule 17.1, pointing out that one of the requirements is that a criminal defendant make a timely request for such information. From our review of the record, at no time during the entire process did appellant make any discovery request, either specific or general. Although not discussed by the State in its brief, the Hot Springs City Attorney asserted in earlier pleadings that such a request early on in the proceedings would have prompted his office to inquire further with the police department as to any relevant information.
More importantly, the State argues that the problem in this case is not so much one of a discovery violation as it is one of the loss by the State of evidence that was potentially useful to appellant. See Threadgill v. State, 74 Ark. App. 301, 47 S.W.3d 304 (2001). More specifically, the State contends that the problem is whether the loss of evidence infringes upon the trial's fundamental fairness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. The United States Supreme Court has held that " nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law." Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988). This court applied that standard in Threadgill, supra, and the same standard is applicable in this case. Here, appellant not only failed to prove, but specifically did not allege bad faith.
At the pre-trial hearing on the motion to dismiss, appellant clearly stated that he did not allege any bad faith on the part of the police in recycling the videotape of his arrest. At that time he asserted, " nd for the record, we're not making any claim that it was done surreptitiously or maliciously. It's just the fact that [the tape] doesn't exist." L
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|