Opinion ID: 1649554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss for failure of the state to properly preserve certain physical evidence.

Text: ¶ 15. King next contends that the State improperly handled and failed to preserve certain physical evidence, and thus, deprived him of his right to a fair trial and due process of law. Specifically, King points to the handling of the blood stained shirt and the fact that it could not be analyzed for DNA. The test for whether dismissal is warranted due to evidentiary snafus has been laid out in Duplantis v. State, 708 So.2d 1327 (Miss.1998) and Banks v. State, 725 So.2d 711 (Miss.1997); and was originally set forth in Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368 (Miss.1987). The test is: [T]he State's duty to preserve evidence is limited to evidence that is expected to play a significant role in the defense. To play a constitutionally significant role in the defense, the exculpatory nature of the evidence must have been (1) apparent before the evidence was destroyed and (2) of such a nature that the defendant could not obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Banks, 725 So.2d at 714-15 (citing Tolbert, 511 So.2d at 1372). King asserts that he has satisfied this test; and therefore, his conviction and sentence should be reversed and rendered. ¶ 16. In fact, the shirt was found wet and placed in a plastic evidence bag. However, the shirt was not frozen, as recommended by the testimony of expert Julie Golden of Reliagene Technologies as the best method for preserving items for DNA testing, especially a wet article of clothing. No evidence was introduced to suggest that articles of potential evidence are normally frozen by the Greenwood Police Department; actually, officers testified that they try to bag anything that may be evidence. However, it was stipulated that the lack of proper preservation (freezing rather than mere storage) led to DNA being degraded by bacteria. Golden compared cuttings from the shirt to samples of Pitts's and King's blood. In the end, valid DNA results could not be obtained from the shirt in question. ¶ 17. Does such evidence fulfill the Tolbert test? As to the first prong, there is little doubt that the exculpatory nature of the evidence was apparent before it was allowed to spoil. After all, this case deals with a homicide. The DNA testing could have shown that Pitts bled on King sometime that night, or it could have bolstered King's version of events by substantiating his claims of being attacked by unknown assailants. Such evidence would have gone a long way in giving King's story some credence and weight. ¶ 18. The second prong of the test is somewhat more difficult. While the DNA testing could have lent a hand to King's defense, he was still able to put forth his theory. Furthermore, he even was able to use other physical evidence to support his version of events, namely the paper towels which had blood on them that did not match King or Pitts. King could have and did argue that the blood on the paper towels came from the same person as the blood on his shirt, and he argued that but for the shoddy work of the police department, he would have had more evidence of his innocence. So, even though it is undeniable that the DNA testing would have played a role in this case, King was still able to present his argument to the jury. ¶ 19. In addition to the two enumerated prongs of the test, Tolbert also held: the mere possibility the evidence might aid the defense does not satisfy the constitutional materiality standard. United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1230 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Webster, 750 F.2d 307, 333 (5th Cir.1984). In deciding whether the destruction of evidence constituted a due process denial, the Trombetta Court also considered whether the government agents had acted in good faith and in accord with their normal practice or had made a conscious effort to suppress exculpatory evidence. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). Tolbert, 511 So.2d at 1372. [W]e do not believe [King] was prejudiced ... by the absence of this alleged evidence. [King] fails to present any compelling evidence of fraud or intentional suppression of the truth on the state's behalf. Duplantis, 708 So.2d at 1338. Furthermore, our review of the record shows that, at best, this evidence would have only aided King's defense; it was not a necessary element of it. Thus, since the DNA testing would have only been an aid in King's defense and there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the State, we find this issue to be without merit.