Opinion ID: 1768367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: preservation of physical evidence

Text: Although the appellant levels a blanket accusation that he was denied due process throughout this prosecution, trial, and conviction; and that he was railroaded into prison for the remainder of his life, his principal complaint concerns the handling of physical evidence by the Kentucky State Police and the refusal of the trial judge to give the appellant's tendered instruction thereon. Detective Sizemore testified that he took photographs of the table at George Sizemore's house from which a bullet was recovered, and of the victim's truck. He also called in Charles Lanham, a firearms expert from the KSP crime laboratory, who inspected and took additional photographs of the victim's truck. When they had finished with the victim's truck, it was returned to his family two days after the shooting. His father had the damage repaired and repainted. Although the appellant could not then be located, and did not surrender himself on the indictment until November of 1992, over three months later, he now complains that he was denied due process by the failure of the KSP to retain the truck. He makes the same complaint with regard to a wooden post which Detective Sizemore had to split in two in order to recover a bullet fragment lodged inside. Similarly, he complains that the table from which the detective recovered another bullet in the George Sizemore house was not available for his examination. The appellant brief makes the exaggerated accusation that the Commonwealth intentionally destroyed physical evidence and likens this conduct to that of the Commonwealth in Sanborn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 754 S.W.2d 534 (1988). In that case, a Commonwealth's Attorney admitted intentionally erasing the tape-recorded statements of four witnesses, three of whom testified at trial for the prosecution. We described these acts of the prosecutor as misconduct of constitutional proportions under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 88, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1197, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 219 (1963), and its progeny. Id., 754 S.W.2d 534 at 539. We think the criticism here is completely without merit. In the instant case, there was absolutely no showing of any bad faith on the part of Detective Sizemore, Mr. Lanham, or any prosecutor. On the contrary, the appellant, once he returned to face the charges and stand trial, was furnished numerous photographs of all the physical evidence, including the victim's truck and the post and table where bullet fragments had lodged. Further, with regard to the table, the appellant's counsel conceded at oral argument that while the trial was still in progress, he learned that the table was intact after all, but he never took the time to go and look at it. The appellant's brief erroneously describes the return of the victim's truck to his family by Detective Sizemore as destroying or concealing evidence. The brief also claims that the truck was deliberately released to the family outside normal Kentucky State Police procedure. Yet the record is devoid of any proof of any procedural rule or regulation of the KSP that so provides, which Detective Sizemore might have violated. The only testimony that even vaguely suggests such a general policy, without any specific time limits, is the following cross-examination of Detective Sizemore: Q. And as a detective you are kept updated on evidence collection and handling procedures? A. Yes. Q. And isn't it true Detective you are trained and required by the Kentucky State Police to gather and preserve physical evidence? A. Yes. Q. So we don't need to go through these orders because you recognize that you are required to gather, preserve and maintain the integrity of physical evidence that you gather in the course of investigation? A. Yes sir. Notwithstanding all the above, the trial court nevertheless gave the jury a missing evidence instruction as approved in Sanborn, supra , as follows: Instruction No. 2: If you believe from the evidence that there existed certain items that were potential evidence, and that the agents or employees of the Commonwealth intentionally destroyed the same, you may, but are not required to, infer that these items would be, if available, adverse to the Commonwealth and favorable to the defendant. The appellant objected to the court's instruction and tendered one of his own which the court correctly rejected. It read as follows: The Commonwealth has lost or released several pieces of evidence involved in this case including the pickup truck in which Brian Sizemore was killed, a table from Mildred Sizemore's home, a post from the area of the shooting and a tape recorded statement taken from Kathy Davidson. In your deliberations you may assume that these articles of evidence, if available now, would be favorable to John S. Johnson's case. Unlike the instruction approved by us in Sanborn, supra , the appellant's tendered instruction was tantamount to requiring the jury to assume that all the physical evidence observable on or about the victim's truck, the split post, and the Sizemore table would be favorable to the defendant's case. We know of no authority to support any such instruction. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that the trial court's instruction showed that he bent over backwards to be fair to the appellant with regard to the physical evidence issue.