Opinion ID: 2549875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jury instruction on alleged loss of evidence

Text: Appellant complains that the police investigator lost valuable evidence and that the district court improperly denied his motion for a jury instruction on lost evidence. A crime scene analyst testified for the State. In investigating the murders, the analyst noticed a small spot of apparent blood on the Ruger pistol found near Washington's body. Using distilled water and a cotton swab, he collected a sample at the scene to test for the presence of blood. He did not recall what the spot looked like. The amount of blood was insufficient to conduct DNA analysis. A forensic expert testified for the defense. He examined the Ruger and found no blood but was able to detect low levels of DNA, which could come from ordinary handling of the gun. The expert determined that the DNA did not come from Woods, Washington, Payne, Hall, or appellant. However, he indicated that did not rule out the possibility that any of them had handled it. He testified that if an object appears to have blood on it, it should be photographed and a diagram should be drawn before a sample is taken. After a sample is taken, another photograph should be taken. He stated that much information could be gained by examining a blood spatter or smear. According to the defense expert, when possible, it was better to collect blood in a laboratory environment rather than at the scene of a crime. In this case, he was unable to find any blood spatter to analyze on the gun or in any photograph. Appellant contends that the existence or nonexistence of blood spatter on the gun was essential to establishing whether Washington was holding the gun when he was shot. Appellant maintains that his right to a fair trial and to confront the State's evidence was denied when the analyst removed the blood on the gun without first documenting and photographing it. He believes that he was entitled to instruct the jury on a conclusive presumption that the pistol had blood spatter on it consistent with being near Washington when he was shot. Loss or destruction of evidence by the State violates due process only if the defendant shows either that the State acted in bad faith or that the defendant suffered undue prejudice and the exculpatory value of the evidence was apparent before it was lost or destroyed. [53] To establish prejudice, the defendant must show that it could be reasonably anticipated that the evidence would have been exculpatory and material to the defense. [54] It is not sufficient that the showing disclose merely a hoped-for conclusion from examination of the destroyed evidence or that examination of the evidence would be helpful in preparing [a] defense. [55] Appellant has shown neither bad faith nor that it could be reasonably anticipated the evidence in question would have been exculpatory and material. He has at best a hoped-for conclusion that the evidence would have supported his case. This case is quite different from Sanborn v. State, [56] cited by appellant. In that case, Sanborn was convicted of murder. He claimed that he acted in self-defense after the victim shot him, while the State theorized that Sanborn had shot himself. Mishandling of the gun [that was used to shoot Sanborn] resulted in a loss of evidence of blood and fingerprints, and there were no witnesses, other than the accused, to [the] homicide. [57] [E]vidence of blood or fingerprints on the weapon could have been critical, corroborative evidence of self-defense. The state's case was buttressed by the absence of this evidence. [58] This court concluded that the mishandling of the evidence had prejudiced Sanborn, entitling him to a jury instruction setting forth the conclusive presumption that the victim had held and fired the gun. [59] Here, by contrast, any mishandling of the evidence was minimal: in Sanborn, blood and fingerprint tests were not done even though the need for them was obvious, whereas here the analyst did test for blood and fingerprints, and it was not obvious that the form of the apparent blood spot had any probative value. Also, here we have three witnesses to the crimes other than the accused, and appellant has not shown that the lost evidence was critical or buttressed the State's case.