 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
1 S.W.3d 751, 760 (Tenn. 2002); see also State v. William C. Tomlin, Jr., No. M2003-01746-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 626704, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Mar. 30, 2004), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2004). Further, " he decision whether to dismiss an indictment lies within the discretion of the trial court." State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767, 769 (Tenn. 2000). An abuse of discretion exists when the "`court applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an injustice to the party complaining.'" State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997)).
First, we must determine whether the State had the duty to preserve the contested items of evidence. It seems clear that the items were at least valuable to the preparation of the appellant's defense. As such, the State was required to preserve the items. Next, we must determine the consequences of the State's failure to adhere to that duty.
The record demonstrates that the evidence was lost through simple negligence. Moreover, the appellant has not explained why the photographs were not as useful as the Styrofoam, plexiglass, and duct tape from the victim's front door would have been. In fact, the appellant utilized the photographs of the victim's residence at length in his closing and argued at length regarding his client's actions at the scene:
Now, we know [the appellant] walks to the trailer and we know there's no evidence of a fight inside that camper. There's no blood inside the camper and the inside is not turned upside down like it would have been if you had two large men like that fighting in that small an area. There's no, no indication of any kind of scuffle in there. Now, the damage to the trailer starts at the door. That door is an important piece of evidence. You've heard that this window frame had plexi-glass in the top frame, Styrofoam in the bottom frame. It was held together by Duck tape on both sides. There was Duck tape on the outside, there was Duck tape on the inside. You can see the Duck tape attached to the Styrofoam and plexi- glass. You can see where it was. Look at that outside door. All of the Duck tape on the outside is gone except for a little bitty strip along the bottom. It's all gone. Now the inside of the door looks differently. The inside of the door, and here's a close up of it, there you go, you can see the tape on the inside. You can see the gray Duck tape on the inside is largely undisturbed. It goes all the way up the side and it goes down the bottom. It's hidden some by that curtain, but it's intact on the inside. Now, what does that tell you, that's all broken out. Well, the only way you can explain that is you have a situation like this, you have Duck tape on both sides holding two things. After an event occurs what's left is the inside tape. The covering and the outside tape is all gone. What does that tell you? The only logical explanation is the force came from the inside. If the force pushing on those things came from the other side the tape on the inside would be dislodge and the tape on the outside would be there, but it's just the opposite, folks. Just the opposite. How else can you explain how that got broken out[?] In [the appellant's] statement he tells - they didn't put it in the statement he signed by the way, you notice - but he, they mentioned he said he came busting out of that door. There's the proof of that.
The appellant has not specified what evidentiary value the specific items would have offered that the photographs did not. Moreover, there was ample evidence at trial supporting the appellant's conviction. The trial court concluded that th
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.
|
|