Opinion ID: 2070030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Backpack Evidence

Text: Five days prior to Middlebrook's arrest, the police recovered a dark blue backpack with a broken zipper from Walt's Chicken, a business located near the shooting scene. Inside that backpack were latex gloves, ski masks, a skull cap, a toothbrush, deodorant, and a box of bullets of the same brand as the bullets found at the shooting scene. The police photographed the backpack and its contents. The actual items were destroyed before trial. At trial, the State presented witnesses who testified that the shooter fled carrying a backpack. The witnesses also saw the shooter drop something and stop to pick it up while running from the scene. Middlebrook admitted to the police that he had recently owned a backpack similar to the one photographed by the police and containing similar toiletries. Middlebrook told the police, however, that he gave his backpack to a friend several weeks before the shooting. Defense counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony about the photographs of the backpack and its contents. The trial judge denied the motion to exclude reference to the backpack and its contents and permitted the State to introduce the photograph of the backpack and its contents at trial. The trial judge, however, also instructed the jury, pursuant to this Court's holding in Lolly, [7] to assume that the destroyed evidence, had it been preserved, would have tended to prove Middlebrook not guilty. The jury was given the following instruction: In this case, ladies and gentlemen, the Court has determined that the State failed to preserve microscopic evidence from items recovered from Walt's Chicken store which is material to the defense. The State's failure to preserve that evidence entitled defendant to an inference that if the evidence were available at trial it would be exculpatory. This means that for purposes of deciding this case, you are to assume that the missing evidence, had it been preserved, would not have incriminated defendant and would have tended to prove defendant not guilty. The inference does not necessarily establish defendant's innocence, however. If there is other evidence presented that establishes the fact or resolves the issue to which the missing evidence was material, you must weigh the evidence along with the inference. Nevertheless, despite the inference concerning the missing evidence, if you conclude, after examining all the evidence, that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the offenses charged, you would be justified in returning a verdict of guilty. The trial judge properly ruled that the State had a duty to preserve the backpack and its contents. [8] The trial judge then analyzed the consequences that should flow from the State's breach of that duty in accordance with this Court's holding in Deberry v. State . [9] The trial judge concluded that, if the State wanted to present testimony about and photographs of the backpack, the jury would be instructed in accordance with the Court's holding in Lolly v. State. [10] After that ruling, when the State decided to present the secondary photographic evidence of the backpack and its contents, the trial judge instructed the jury that, if the backpack and its contents had been preserved for testing, the test results would have not been incriminating to Middlebrook and would have tended to prove Middlebrook not guilty. On appeal, Middlebrook contends the trial judge abused his discretion when he denied the motion in limine. Middlebrook argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion in balancing the prejudice to Middlebrook against the probative value of the secondary photographic evidence and testimony to the State's case. If the jury followed the Lolly instruction, Middlebrook submits the photograph of the backpack and related testimony had no probative value to the State. Based upon that assertion, Middlebrook contends that his convictions demonstrate the jury's disregard for the trial judge's Lolly instruction and establish that he was unfairly prejudiced by the trial judge's ruling. When a trial judge determines that the probative value of evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403, this Court's standard of review on appeal is deferential. [11] The trial judge is in a unique position to evaluate and balance the probative and prejudicial aspects of any evidence. [12] The record reflects that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion when he admitted the photographic and testimonial evidence pertaining to the backpack in combination with a Lolly instruction that, had the actual items been preserved, they would have tended to prove Middlebrook not guilty. Middlebrook's argument that his convictions demonstrate the jury's disregard of the Lolly instruction is not logical. The parties agree that if the jury followed the judge's instruction, the backpack evidence did not help the State's case and did not tend to incriminate Middlebrook. The record reflects, however, that the jury was properly instructed to look at all of the other evidence presented by the State to establish Middlebrook's guilt. In this case, both victims and a third eyewitness positively identified Middlebrook as the shooter. The jury could have followed the Lolly instruction and, nevertheless, logically concluded that Middlebrook gave away his broken backpack and replaced it with a similar separate backpack, which he was carrying at the time of the shooting. The record reflects that the Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in denying Middlebrook's motion in limine and giving a Lolly instruction to the jury.