Opinion ID: 1998111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: on motions to reargue

Text: Defendant seeks reargument on the ground that the Court has misapprehended points of law and fact presented in the briefs of the parties. Following the filing of the motion, the Court sought additional briefing on the impact of Arizona v. Youngblood, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), on this case. Relying on Arizona v. Youngblood and other cases, the State also seeks reargument, urging outright reversal of the trial court order. The heart of the original decision was that it was impossible on the record before us to determine the significance of the initial draft of the officer's report and that the critical trial court finding (Finding No. 16) was a mere recitation of evidence. Whether the issue is prejudice to the defendant, or a reasonable possibility that the evidence is favorable, or the importance of the evidence, see State v. Bailey, 144 Vt. at 94-95, 475 A.2d at 1050-51, it is not possible to gauge the nature and significance of the lost evidence without the proper finding. This deficiency remains whether we view the case as involving disclosure of exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, or involving discovery sanctions under V.R. Cr.P. 16.2(g). Similarly we are unwilling to analyze the effect of Arizona v. Youngblood on this record. Motions for reargument denied.