Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denying Motion to Impose Sanction for Failure to Preserve Evidence

Text: (15) It is settled that trial courts `enjoy a large measure of discretion in determining the appropriate sanction that should be imposed' because of the failure to preserve or destruction of material evidence. [Citations.] ( People v. Sixto (1993) 17 Cal. App.4th 374, 399 [21 Cal. Rptr.2d 264]; see also People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 964 [17 Cal. Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704].) (13c) We find no abuse of discretion. Although defendant calls the circumstances surrounding the records' destruction suspicious because the court's denial of the motion to discover them was a major focus of his appeal from the original judgment and the records were destroyed two months after oral argument in that appeal, the court could reasonably conclude that (1) the evidence showed the records were destroyed according to the provisions of the Government Code  indeed, they were kept for three years beyond the two-year period after which Government Code section 34090, subdivision (d), permitted their destruction  and (2) the department, unschooled in the nuances of appellate procedure, did not realize that the records might be needed after the court in defendant's prior trial denied the motion to discover them. Nor, the court could reasonably conclude, was there an improper purpose behind the policy to keep personnel records relevant to civil cases while not attempting to determine whether criminal cases might still be unresolved: criminal cases rarely remain active after five years. We find no abuse of discretion and no violation of due process in the refusal to impose a sanction.