Title: Turner v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JASON E. TURNER,  
 
 
§ 
§ 
No. 339, 2005 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  
Court Below: Superior Court of the 
§ 
State of Delaware in and for 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
ID No. 0404017775  
§ 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  January 3, 2006 
Decided:     February 24, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 24th day of February 2006, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and their contentions at oral argument, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Defendant Jason E. Turner appeals from his convictions by a Superior 
Court jury of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled 
Substance, Possession of a Non-Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance, and 
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  Turner contends the trial judge erred in denying 
his motion for a missing evidence instruction to the jury.  We find no merit to this 
argument and affirm.   
(2) 
On April 23, 2004 Wilmington Police arrested Turner after observing 
him take money from three individuals and give them plastic bags in return.  He 
 
2
was transported to the Wilmington Police Department and strip searched in a room 
under video surveillance.  The police testified that a packet containing 2.5 grams of 
crack cocaine fell from Turner’s pants after he handed them to the police.   
(3) 
The reasons for the surveillance video were explained at trial by the 
police.  They routinely record a search for law enforcement officer safety and to 
protect the searching officer in case a defendant makes a complaint about police 
conduct in the area.  The standard policy is for the Wilmington Police Department 
to hold the recording for thirty days.  If there is no complaint against the officers, 
the Department routinely erases or records over the video tape. 
(4) 
Almost one year after the search, defense counsel requested a copy of 
the videotape of the search of Turner.  Because his request was not made or 
received until long after the thirty day period for preserving the tape, the tape had 
been erased pursuant to the standard policy.       
(5) 
Turner claims that the failure of police to preserve the videotape falls 
within the scope of this Court’s decision in Lolly v. State.1  Turner claims he was 
entitled to a missing evidence instruction in light of the videotape’s potential 
probative value.  Specifically, Turner argues that the police had a duty to preserve 
the evidence, and that their breach of that duty caused undue prejudice.  The State 
responds that there was no duty to preserve under the policies served by 
                                          
 
1 Lolly v. State, 611 A.2d 956 (Del. 1992). 
 
3
videotaping, no timely demand for the tape, and therefore, no breach of police 
duties under Deberry and its progeny.2 
(6) 
“This Court reviews de novo the Superior Court’s denial of a 
requested jury instruction.”3  In Lolly, this Court chose to “continue to adhere to 
the view that the Deberry/Hammond rationale, premised upon State constitutional 
standards of due process, should continue to control claims of prejudice arising 
from failure of police to gather or preserve evidence.”4  We have recognized that 
“there may be circumstances when the State failed to preserve evidence that was 
material to the defense and the defendant would be entitled to a missing evidence 
instruction.”5  At the heart of these cases is a dual-part analysis focusing on the 
conduct of the State and the nature of the missing evidence.6 
(7) 
The videotape recording at issue here was made pursuant to an 
administrative procedure adopted for purposes of officer safety and for responding 
to complaints of police impropriety.  The recording was not made with the purpose 
of gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution.  There is no allegation of bad 
faith in this case.  In the absence of a timely demand to preserve the tape, 
                                          
 
2 Derberry v. State, 457 A.2d 744 (Del. 1983).  See Hendricks v. State, 871 A.2d 1118 (Del. 
2005). 
3 Gutierrez v. State, 842 A.2d 650, 651 (Del. 2003) (citing Lunnon v. State, 710 A.2d 197, 199 
(Del. 1998). 
4 Lolly, 611 A.2d at 960 (citing Deberry v. State, 457 A.2d 744 (1983) and Hammond v. State, 
Del. Supr., 569 A.2d 81 (1989)). 
5 Hendricks, 871 A.2d at 1124 (citing Lolly) (footnote omitted) (emphasis omitted). 
6 Id. 
 
4
compliance with the administrative protocol to erase the tape after thirty days 
expired was not wrongful.  While there may be circumstances where a duty to 
preserve this kind of tape arises, the facts and circumstances of this case do not 
support that conclusion.     
(8) 
Turner has not shown that the missing video substantially prejudiced 
his defense.  This Court recently held in Wainer v. State that where “the State does 
not act negligently or in bad faith in failing to preserve evidence, and the missing 
evidence does not substantially prejudice the defendant’s case, a Deberry 
instruction is not necessary.”7  Wainer is applicable to Turner’s claim.  On the facts 
of this case, we find that the Superior Court did not err when it denied Turner’s 
motion for a missing evidence instruction.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        /s/Henry duPont Ridgely  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
7 Wainer v. State, 2005 Del. LEXIS 78, * 10 (Del. 2005) (citations omitted)