 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
ate's duty to preserve evidence. He contends that the "Styrofoam, plexi-glass, and duct tape from the [victim's] camper door was evidence `that could [have been] favorable to the [appellant].'" During a jury-out hearing, Eddie Simms, an investigator with the Sullivan County Public Defender's office, testified that Detective Christian told him that the victim's camper had been destroyed. During questioning by the trial court, Simms said he had visited the crime scene "right around the time of the preliminary hearing," but the camper was no longer there.
Detective Christian was recalled and testified that he told Simms the victim's camper "had been destroyed or moved because didn't know for sure." He said that "sometime later on down the road" he learned that the camper still existed, but no one ever made any further requests or asked him anything else about the camper. He acknowledged that he never told Simms that the camper was still in existence.
Initially, we note that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution afford every criminal defendant the right to a fair trial. See Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn. 2001). As such, the State has a constitutional duty to furnish a defendant with exculpatory evidence pertaining to the petitioner's guilt or innocence or to the potential punishment faced by a defendant. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963).
In State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), our supreme court addressed the issue of when a defendant is entitled to relief when the State has lost or destroyed evidence that was alleged to have been exculpatory. The court explained that a reviewing court must first determine whether the State had a duty to preserve the lost or destroyed evidence. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 917. Ordinarily, "the State has a duty to preserve all evidence subject to discovery and inspection under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16, or other applicable law." Id. However,
" hatever duty the Constitution imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.
Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 917 (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488-89, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2534 (1984) (footnote and citation omitted)).
If the proof demonstrates the existence of a duty to preserve the evidence and further shows that the State has failed in that duty, a court must proceed with a balancing analysis involving consideration of the following factors:
1. The degree of negligence involved;
2. The significance of the destroyed evidence, considered in light of the probative value and reliability of secondary or substitute evidence that remains available; and
3. The sufficiency of the other evidence used at trial to support the conviction.
Id. (footnote omitted). If the court's consideration of these factors reveals that a trial without the missing evidence would lack fundamental fairness, the court may consider several options. For example, the court may dismiss the charges or, alternatively, provide an appropriate jury instruction. Id.
Generally, a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence at trial will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. James, 8
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|