Opinion ID: 1819311
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Destruction of Evidence Claim

Text: Hitchcock argues that the State destroyed exculpatory physical evidence, including hairs, blood samples, and clothing that, if subjected to DNA testing and hair comparison, could have been used to implicate Richard and exonerate Hitchcock. Hitchcock admits that this Court has already concluded that DNA testing would not exonerate Hitchcock, see Hitchcock VII, but argues that this Court should nevertheless order DNA testing of the hair samples in light of the postconviction evidence that the original hair analysis may have been flawed. We agree with the circuit court's finding that Hitchcock has not demonstrated how DNA testing would result in newly discovered evidence likely to produce an acquittal on retrial. DNA analysis of the pubic hairs found on the victim would not exonerate Hitchcock because he admitted having sexual intercourse with her. DNA analysis of the non-pubic hairs found on the victim is also not likely to exonerate Hitchcock because the victim and Richard lived in the same household. Shared living space provides a reasonable, innocent explanation for the presence of Richard's hairs on the victim's body. See King v. State, 808 So.2d 1237, 1247 (Fla.2002). Hitchcock also claims that to the extent that the evidence is unavailable for testing, such destruction of evidence is a violation of his constitutional rights. The loss or destruction of evidence that is potentially useful to the defense violates due process only if the defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police or prosecution. Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 509 (Fla.2003) (citing Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988)). In his second amended motion, Hitchcock failed to allege bad faith or any facts that would support such an allegation. Therefore, his claim is legally insufficient.