 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blackwell7/14/2000
e destruction of their breath samples after tests performed by the state using an Intoxilyzer machine showed that the samples contained alcohol. The defendants claimed that "had a breath sample been preserved, [they] would have been able to impeach the incriminating Intoxilyzer results." The Court found no due process violation, however, because the possibility that an independent test of the breath samples would have exculpated the defendants was "extremely low" and because there was evidence that the defendants could have impeached the Intoxilyzer results by other means.
This case differs markedly from Trombetta, and both prongs of the two-part test announced in Trombetta are satisfied here. First, Blackwell's urine sample had an exculpatory value that was apparent before its destruction. "Exculpatory" means "supportive of a claim of innocence" or "tending to clear from alleged fault or guilt." Here, the very same urine sample that the State destroyed had previously tested negative for drugs in a State-administered field test. Because the results of the field test tended to show Blackwell's innocence of the drug charges, the urine had obvious exculpatory value that was apparent before the State destroyed it. Moreover, unlike in Trombetta, Blackwell had specifically sought an independent analysis of the urine sample and the court had granted that motion before the urine was destroyed. Thus, the State was clearly on notice that the urine was "expected to play a significant role in [Blackwell's] defense."
The second prong of the Trombetta test -- a showing that Blackwell is unable to obtain comparable evidence by reasonably available means --is also satisfied. Obviously, Blackwell cannot replicate the destroyed sample. Blackwell could impeach the State Crime Lab's test result by introducing the contrary result from the probation officer's initial test of the urine. But, as the Supreme Court of Illinois said in People v. Newberry, the relief offered by evidence of a conflicting field test is "illusory":
Whatever the actual reliability of the tests performed in the lab . . . the laboratory analysis of the evidence will carry great weight with the jury, and the jury will undoubtedly give such an analysis more deference than the initial field test procedures, which are inherently less precise and controlled.
As in Newberry, Blackwell has no "realistic hope of exonerating himself absent the opportunity to have [the evidence] examined by his own experts." By destroying the sample, the State destroyed Blackwell's ability to meet the prosecution's proof with evidence of like quality.
In short, the State destroyed Blackwell's urine despite its known exculpatory value (the previous negative test) and despite the court order granting Blackwell access to it. Blackwell has no comparable evidence. Accordingly, the State violated Blackwell's due process rights under Trombetta, and the trial court properly dismissed the drug charges in the indictment.
(c) Four years after Trombetta, the United States Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Youngblood, another case addressing the state's obligation to preserve evidence. In Youngblood, the issue was whether the state properly preserved semen samples of the perpetrator in a sexual molestation case. The state allegedly allowed the evidence to deteriorate before testing it, so the test results were inconclusive. The evidence was made available to the defendant, who declined to test it himself, and the state did not use the test results against the defendant at trial. Nevertheless, the defendant argued that if the state had properly preserved the evidence, it might have exonerated him.
On these fa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|