Opinion ID: 1601462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Destruction of the Video Tape.

Text: Hemphill next contends that the district court erred in refusing to rule that the destruction of a video tape taken of Hemphill following his arrest entitled him to an inference that its use in evidence would have been favorable to him. He cites several cases, including State v. Brown, which involved destruction of a blood specimen approximately a week after it was obtained, without an opportunity for analysis by the defendant. 337 N.W.2d 507, 509 (Iowa 1983). The Brown case, and the others cited by Hemphill, are clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the arrest was made on January 22, 1983. The tape was not erased by the Sheriff's Office until May 15, 1983. In the meantime, in February, the video tape had been viewed by both Hemphill and his attorney. We believe the unavailability of the tape under these circumstances is a result of Hemphill's failure to properly provide for its preservation, not from any attempt to deprive him of the use of such evidence. He had adequate time and opportunity to preserve the video tape. We find no basis for reversal. AFFIRMED.