Accordingly, we conclude defendant has failed to show that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. We also reject defendant s contention that the People s failure to preserve the motorcycle or to produce photographs of it violated his right to due process of law as embodied in Crim. Nevertheless, the prosecution s failure to comply with Crim. P. 16 is not reversible error unless the withheld evidence was material to guilt or punishment. Further, unless an accused can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve useful evidence does not constitute a due process deviation.
Exculpatory evidence includes evidence that bears on the credibility of a prosecution witness.
Here, there was no showing of bad faith by the police or the prosecution and the only disputed issue at trial was whether defendant knowingly eluded the officer. Defendant s counsel introduced a picture of the type of motorcycle involved in the chase and both the officer and defendant testified that the picture resembled the actual motorcycle driven by defendant. However, defendant testified that in contrast to the pictured motorcycle, the actual motorcycle lacked rear-view mirrors and had a different exhaust pipe, which made the motorcycle louder. The People did not refute this testimony, and defense counsel emphasized these points during her closing statement. Hence, the jury was aware of the alleged differences in the motorcycles.