Opinion ID: 1899215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impermissible Commenting on the Evidence

Text: The State contends that the requested missing evidence instruction, if it had been given by the trial judge, would have been in violation of Del. Const. art. IV, § 19. That section states: Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, but may state the questions of fact in issue and declare the law. Although not dispositive in this case, we take this opportunity to point out that a missing evidence instruction is a ruling on the admissibility of evidence and is not a prohibited charge on matters of fact. In reviewing a provision of the Washington State Constitution that was similar to the Delaware Constitution, the Washington Supreme Court stated: Evidently it was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution that this provision should impose any undue restraint upon a trial judge in passing upon the competency or admissibility of evidence, or in instructing the jury as to the law. We think their intention was to provide against any undue influence being exerted upon the jury by the judge communicating to them his opinion as to facts proven or not proven by the evidence. [16] As the drafters of the Delaware Constitution stated, the purpose of this provision in the Delaware Constitution is to protect the province of the jury on factual issues. [17] In 1843 in Ivey v. Hodges, [18] the Tennessee Supreme Court stated that the purpose of a similar provision in the Tennessee Constitution is to put a stop to the practice of summing up, as practiced in Great Britain, which consists of telling the jury, not what was deposed to, but what was proven. [19] A ruling on the admissibility of evidence does not invade the jury's responsibility to weigh the facts in evidence, it simply creates an inference that the missing evidence, if available, would have been exculpatory to the defendant. [20] This inference may be dispelled by the other evidence which outweighs or contradicts the inference and establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [21] In Lolly v. State , this Court held that in ruling on whether to give a missing evidence instruction, a trial court makes a legal determination as to the admissibility of evidence based on whether the State acted in bad faith or negligently failed to preserve the evidence and on the materiality of the evidence, this determination being required as a matter of due process under the Delaware Constitution. [22]