Opinion ID: 1708005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Instructions on Failure to Test

Text: During the trial, numerous items described as green leafy substances were marked as exhibits and placed in full view of the jury. These exhibits were objected to and not received into evidence however, because they had not been chemically tested to determine their substance. Exhibit 8, which contained the two bindles, was also never tested after the controlled delivery but was received into evidence. Defendants argue that they were entitled to their requested failure to test jury instruction because these items were never tested. [4] A review of the record indicates, however, that Defendants, in requesting their proposed jury instruction, did not argue the applicability of the instruction to any exhibits other than Exhibit 8. Therefore, as to any exhibits other than Exhibit 8, Defendants have failed to preserve the record. As the trial court noted in refusing Defendants' proposed jury instruction, whether Exhibit 8 contained methamphetamine was a question for the jury. The testimony indicated that after testing the substance found in the package and determining that it was methamphetamine, Agent Mennenga placed a small amount of the methamphetamine with inositol. This is not an instance where the State destroyed evidence before it was inventoried or chemically analyzed (spoilation of the evidence). See State v. Kietzke, 85 S.D. 502, 186 N.W.2d 551, 558 (1971). (Evidence which is destroyed before it is inventoried or chemically analyzed (spoilation of the evidence) creates an inference or presumption that it would not have supported the charges against the defendant.) The bindles were not destroyed, they simply were not tested after delivery. The spoilation doctrine does not apply and the trial court was correct in refusing Defendants' proposed instruction. [5] We affirm. MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON, J., concur. WUEST and HENDERSON, JJ., dissent.