Opinion ID: 1099746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the failure to preserve evidence prejudice hallmark's rights?

Text: ¶ 27. The circuit court stated that the casino employee's act of destroying part of the casino videotape violated gaming regulations, and the deliberate destruction of the tape violated Hallmark's due process rights. In addition, the investigating agents and the hearing officer did not have the benefit of a recording of the entire sequence of events. ¶ 28. Mississippi Gaming Regulation Section 10(e) states that: Every licensee must retain all videotape recordings for at least ten (10) days after the recording is produced, unless a longer time period is required by another section of this regulation, or by order of the Executive Director, the commission, or a court of competent jurisdiction. ¶ 29. The casino has approximately seven minutes of tape beginning at the time Hallmark walked up to the machine to shortly after the lights began flashing on the machine and Hallmark allegedly won the progressive jackpot. The time was approximately 2:14 a.m. to 2:22 a.m. There is no videotape of the subsequent actions taken by casino employees to investigate whether there was an alleged winning of the progressive jackpot or an alleged machine tilt. ¶ 30. The casino claims that the original surveillance tape, from which the copy was made for the Commission, was held for the required time period under the gaming regulations. III.F.7(a). The tape was then returned to the normal inventory for use in taping other casino events. The casino states that Agent Payne viewed the original tape with Brown, the surveillance supervisor, while at the casino. Although, according to the record, its not clear that Agent Payne reviewed the tape that night. The hearing officer had an opportunity to examine a copy of the tape and see the sequence of the flashing lights on Hallmark's machine. However, Agent Hancock testified that he could not determine the sequence of flashing lights from the videotape. The casino claims that the sequence of the flashing lights indicated a reel tilt and a door open, and any claim to the contrary is not supported by fact or evidence. ¶ 31. The cross-examination of Bill Brown, the surveillance supervisor at the casino on November 16, 1997, regarding the videotape, was as follows: Q. Now, why did you stop the tape? A. Just now or Q. No. The tape says, at 2:22 tape stopped, doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. Who made that decision? A. I did. Q. You made it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now this little surveillance report that somebody filled out that was sitting next to you went on beyond 2:22, didn't it? A. The report goes on beyond that, yes, sir. Q. Where do you have it with you on any tape showing what happened at that machine after 2:22? A. I don't have anything with me on the tape, no, sir. Q. Where is it? A. We don't have it. Q. What do you mean you don't have it? A. I mean there's no tape that has it. Q. So you just quit filming at 2:22? A. No, sir. Q. What happened at 2:22? A. That's when I quit dubbing the tape. Q. So there was of this area, out of the camera view that we have just viewed, was still being filmed at 02:22:01? A. Yes, sir. Q. And 2:23? A. Yes, sir. Q. And 2:30? A. Yes, sir. Q. 2:48? A. Still today. Q. 4:20? A. Yes, sir. Q. That's been destroyed, correct? Ms. Hester: Objection. A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, it has been destroyed, hasn't it? A. It's been taped over. Q. You destroyed it. It's gone, correct? A. Correct. Q. And who made that decision? A. I did. Q. You made it? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you make it, that night? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you knew that there was a dispute, correct? A. I knew that there was a dispute at the time that we rerecorded the video, the dub that you saw. Q. Right. Now, so you knew there was a dispute, but you didn't keep what was on the tape past 2:22? A. No, sir. At 5:10 when Agent Payne came up, the dispute, as far as I knew, was taken care of. There was no longer a dispute. Q. Well, did you have the tape available then? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you keep a copy of that? A. There was no longer any dispute. Q. From whose perspective? A. From Agent Payne's. Q. Not from Mr. Hallmark's? (emphasis added). Brown also testified that the equipment used by the casino has a screen that shows all sixteen camera shots. However, Brown excluded the other 15 camera shots from the dubbed version of the videotape because he stated that it did not have any bearing on the issue. ¶ 32. Based on the testimony from the casino employee, a portion of the videotape was destroyed on the night of November 16, 1997. This portion of the tape would have preserved the actions taken by the casino and the Commission representatives involved in this case. The position of the portion of the preserved videotape did not show the pay line. In addition, the other 15 camera angles were not preserved either. The testimony given at the hearing did not indicate whether the other 15 angles were of benefit; nevertheless, any evidence of the subsequent actions of the casino employees and any differing camera views were not maintained. The patron, the Commission and the casino no longer had this evidence to assist in the final determination of the case. ¶ 33. This Court has held: It is a general rule that the intentional spoliation or destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises a presumption, or, more properly, an inference, that this evidence would have been unfavorable to the case of the spoliator. Such a presumption or inference arises, however, only where the spoliation or destruction was intentional and indicates fraud and a desire to suppress the truth, and it does not arise where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent. Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368, 1372-73 (Miss.1987)(quoting Washington v. State, 478 So.2d 1028, 1032-33 (Miss.1985)). As this Court stressed in a recent patron dispute case, Freeman, 747 So.2d at 247, ... patrons are at the mercy of [the] gaming system and the law, and the judicial system is their only current safeguard. Further, the statutes are designed to protect all parties involved in a dispute. ¶ 34. Grand Casino states that in Thomas v. Isle of Capri Casino, 781 So.2d 125, 134 (Miss.2001), this Court held that the negligent loss of evidence results in a permissible inference that the lost evidence would have been unfavorable to the party who lost the evidence. In that case, the hearing officer found that the presumption had been rebutted by other evidence. There are key differences in the Thomas case and the case sub judice that the casino fails to recognize. In Thomas there was sufficient evidence to find that the hearing officer's decision did not meet the `unsupported by any evidence' standard to require a reversal. Id. The evidence in Thomas consisted of slot tracking systems, experts to describe the functions of the machine in jackpot mode, and a surveillance tape, as well as several witnesses with conflicting testimony. Substantive evidence was not available in the case sub judice. The evidence in the case sub judice was spoiled or altered in such a way as to prevent a meaningful investigation. Furthermore, it can not be said that in the present case the casino negligently altered the machine and dubbed over the surveillance tape. On the contrary, the casino's actions were deliberate and intentional. ¶ 35. Besides failing to preserve the video tape and the condition of the machine, the casino also failed to preserve the custom buffer (cus buf) report. The cus buf report shows all door openings, door closings, jackpots, tilts, etc. The computer buffer files have limited space, and once the files are full, the old data is deleted as more current data is generated. Williams, the director of slot machines, knew there had been a jackpot dispute with Hallmark and was aware of limited computer space in regard to the cus buf report. Yet, the report was not generated. Consequently, the message that the computer would have received from Hallmark's machine at the time of his play was lost. If the machine had been intact and not altered, the alleged tilt code could have been verified by the Commission or verified against the computer cus buf report, if the report had been preserved by the casino. ¶ 36. The circuit court also cited that a time delay severely compromised the investigation that followed and violated Hallmark's due process rights. Agent Hancock was assigned the case in mid December after the Commission received a Petition for Investigation from Hallmark's counsel. The circuit court stated that the Commission should have conducted the investigation immediately after the dispute arose. Hallmark had to hire an attorney and file a petition for the investigation. ¶ 37. Clearly, a delay of one month by the Commission, severely inhibited the investigation. The machine, of course, was not in the same position; the videotape was not complete; some computer reports were not still available; the events were not as fresh in the minds of the witnesses; and some witnesses, such as other patrons, were not questioned. Furthermore, a different agent was assigned the case, and he was not as familiar with the surrounding events. ¶ 38. Grand Casino failed to follow procedure and deliberately spoiled tangible evidence. The remaining evidence was necessarily inconclusive. Due to the failure to afford Hallmark due process of law, in light of the casino's failure to preserve the evidence and to follow proper procedure, a decision by the Commission in favor of the casino would be inappropriate. ¶ 39. The casino had all the pertinent evidence under its control and in its possession. Yet the casino failed to preserve all evidence surrounding the alleged jackpot, such as the entire videotape of all events concerning the patron dispute. The patrons in these instances are truly at the mercy of the casino, which has control over much of the potential evidence in a patron dispute case. Therefore, the circuit court correctly determined that based on a review of the record, Hallmark's substantial rights were prejudiced. ¶ 40. The dissent states that this Court has cited no legal authority to support the conclusion that Hallmark was denied his due process rights. Although this is a case of first impression, the legal authority that allows this Court to protect the substantive due process rights of patrons rests in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3)(a). Furthermore, the procedural notice requirement, under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-159(1), was intended to protect the patron and the casino by allowing a non-biased party, the Commission, to determine and judge disputes such as this one. The only evidence not in the control of the casino included: a machine in its original condition, the cuss buf report, surveillance videos, third parties, etc. Before the Commission had the opportunity to evaluate this evidence, it was altered or destroyed. The dissent sets forth a list of evidence that it contends clearly indicates that Hallmark did not win the jackpot. However, all of this evidence remained under the control of the casino throughout the investigation.