Opinion ID: 2116856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Craig assigns error in the State's failure to preserve the nunchakus as evidence. He asserts this failure violated his constitutional right to due process. We have said:

Text: To prove a due process violation based on destruction of evidence, the defendant must show (1) a proper defense request for the evidence; (2) that the evidence was material; and (3) that the evidence would have been significantly favorable to the defendant. State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Iowa 1992). See also State v. Brown, 337 N.W.2d 507, 509 (Iowa 1983). Our Hulbert and Brown holdings are in compliance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The showing required by this three-prong test, known as the Brady test, is satisfied in two related yet dissimilar circumstances: (1) intentional destruction of material exculpatory evidence (material being the second prong of the Brady test and exculpatory the third prong); and (2) bad faith destruction of material potentially exculpatory evidence. As to the first circumstance, we have long held that the Brady spoilage rule does not apply where the destruction of evidence was merely negligent; the destruction must be intentional in order for the rule to apply. State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1979). Beginning with Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58, 109 S.Ct. 333, 337, 102 L.Ed.2d 281, 289 (1989), a bad faith requirement has been introduced into the analysis. [1] To find a due process violation, Youngblood requires more objectionable police conduct (bad faith) when the exculpatory value of the destroyed evidence is not suitable for evaluation. Where the lost evidence is only potentially exculpatory, where by its nature the lost evidence cannot be evaluated by a fact finder, a due process violation will not be found in the absence of a showing of bad faith. [2] In other words, when potentially exculpatory evidence is at issue the third prong of the Brady test cannot, by definition, be satisfied and is replaced by a bad faith requirement. On the other hand, if the exculpatory value of the lost evidence is suitable for evaluation by a fact finder, a due process violation will be found upon a showing that the evidence was exculpatory and its destruction was deliberate. The nunchakus' nature and quality is, or can be, made known; a fact finder can evaluate whether it is material exculpatory evidence. Hence it is not subject to the Youngblood bad faith analysis and the Brady test is to be conducted on the basis of whether its destruction was deliberate. The evidence in this case fails this test. There is no satisfactory evidence the nunchakus came into the possession of the police, much less that the police deliberately destroyed them. If we were to assume the nunchakus had been destroyed by the police, at most the destruction would have been no more than negligent. We do not suggest the nunchakus would pass the second or third Brady tests. Craig thinks it passes the second test because, he contends, the nunchakus would corroborate his testimony pertaining to his defense of justification. It is difficult to believe this evidence would add anything to his defense. At the time of the fight Craig had no reason to fear Satterfield was reaching for the nunchakus. It was one of the Shulls, not Satterfield, who had produced them the prior evening. We think the nunchakus were unrelated to Craig's defense of justification. Craig would also have difficulty establishing the third Brady test. There is no indication the evidence would have been significantly favorable to him. As mentioned, the nunchakus were unrelated to Craig's defense of justification. Therefore, at most, Craig could only hope to use the nunchakus to enhance his credibility by corroborating his portrayal of the events the evening before the fight. Those events are, however, not in dispute. We find no merit in the assignment. II. Craig thinks the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct by a remark made in closing argument to the jury. The prosecutor said Craig was speaking with friends prior to the incident and asked the jury why those friends did not testify. Our review is for abuse of discretion. State v. Anderson, 448 N.W.2d 32, 33 (Iowa 1989). Craig cites language from our opinion in State v. White, 225 N.W.2d 104, 106 (Iowa 1975), which Craig takes to mean it is always misconduct for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant's failure to call witnesses. Our language in White may have been too expansive; that holding is limited to its facts. It must be remembered that the witness principally involved in White was White's wife. The correct rule was explained in State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554, 563 (Iowa 1986): In the past we have expressed concern about prosecution arguments that focus on lack of evidence or failure to produce witnesses.... However, not all remarks relating to the evidence are forbidden. A prosecutor may properly comment upon the defendant's failure to present exculpatory evidence, so long as it is not phrased to call attention to the defendant's own failure to testify. (Emphasis added) (Citations omitted). Under the circumstances here, the language used by the prosecutor amounted to fair comment. Any intimation to the contrary in State v. White is overruled. AFFIRMED.