Opinion ID: 1676108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rush next focuses upon his pretrial limine and trial suppression motions regarding evidence as to marijuana, lost in the mails after effectuation of a chemical analysis.

Text: This is defendant's theory, as summarized by trial court: [T]he very fact the State is unable to produce the marijuana should preclude any reference by anyone to the fact of the marijuana. An accused should not be denied leave to examine physical evidence the State expects to use against him. See State v. Eads, 166 N.W.2d 766, 771 (Iowa 1969). See also Annot., 7 A.L.R.3d 8. Here, however, defendant does not claim the State deliberately withheld, suppressed or destroyed the involved substance. In fact the record affirmatively discloses the material was chemically analyzed by the Iowa Criminalistics Laboratory, found to be marijuana, and the remainder placed in the mail (restricted) for return to the Davenport Police Department. It then mysteriously disappeared. United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 356, 89 S.Ct. 528, 533, 21 L.Ed.2d 537, 545 (1969) holds, in substance, the situation instantly presented does not rise to a constitutional level. This is followed by People v. Eddington, 53 Mich.App. 200, 218 N.W.2d 831, 834 (1974), where the court said: Even Augenblick, supra, interpreting the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, indicates that circumstances of evidence destruction are crucial in determining whether the sanction of exclusion attaches. A good-faith loss does not trigger exclusion, and does not even rise to the dignity of constitutional dimension. In light of the persuasive, reliable authority to the contrary, we hold the trial judge abused his discretion in concluding that good-faith unintentional nonproduction of evidence requires suppression of expert testimony because defendant's right to confrontation is violated. (emphasis supplied). See also United States v. Bridges, 499 F.2d 179, 185 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Love, 482 F.2d 213, 218-220 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Sewar, 468 F.2d 236, 237-238 (9th Cir. 1972); State v. Riley, 24 Conn. Sup. 235, 189 A.2d 518, 521 (1962); Davis v. State, 135 Ga.App. 203, 217 S.E.2d 343, 345 (1975); Watson v. State, 18 Md.App. 184, 306 A.2d 599, 606-607 (1973); Gedicks v. State, 62 Wis.2d 74, 214 N.W.2d 569, 573 (1974). Briefly stated, the inexplicable incourse-of-transit loss of the involved substance after it had been tested did not preclude admission in evidence of the Iowa Criminalistics Laboratory analysis report. See State v. Kramer, 231 N.W.2d 874, 880-881 (Iowa 1975); State v. One Certain Conveyance, 1971 Honda 350, etc., 211 N.W.2d 297, 300-301 (Iowa 1973); Code § 749A.2. Actually, the State's inability to physically produce the missing marijuana did not affect admissibility of the test evidence. See United States v. Pullings, 321 F.2d 287, 296 (7th Cir. 1963); Davis v. State, supra ; Watson v. State, supra ; State v. Admire, 495 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Mo.App.1973); Gedicks v. State, 214 N.W.2d at 572-573. Unpreventable loss of the marijuana did not, per se, preclude introduction in evidence of the chemical analysis of the missing substance.