Opinion ID: 2038453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Spoliation InstructionApplicable Legal Principles.

Text: A spoliation instruction is a direction to the jury that it [may] infer from the State's failure to preserve [evidence] that the evidence would have been adverse to the State. State v. Vincik, 398 N.W.2d 788, 795 (Iowa 1987). The definitive Iowa case on a defendant's entitlement to a spoliation instruction based on the government's destruction of evidence is State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330 (Iowa 1979). In that case this court noted the general principle that when evidence is intentionally destroyed, the fact finder may draw the inference that the evidence destroyed was unfavorable to the party responsible for its spoliation. 283 N.W.2d at 333. This inference is based on the rationale that a party's destruction of evidence is an admission by conduct of the weakness of [that party's] case. Id. Accordingly, the spoliation inference is not appropriate when the destruction is not intentional. Id. We held in Langlet there must be substantial evidence to support the following facts in order to justify a spoliation inference: (1) the evidence was in existence; (2) the evidence was in the possession of or under control of the party charged with its destruction; (3) the evidence would have been admissible at trial; and (4) the party responsible for its destruction did so intentionally. Id. at 335. Before instructing the jury on the inference, the trial court must make a threshold determination that the foundation for the inference is sufficient, in other words, that `a jury could appropriately deduce from the underlying circumstances the adverse fact sought to be inferred.' Id. (citation omitted). Once the court gives a spoliation instruction, it is up to the jury to decide whether to draw the spoliation inference in the particular case. Id.