Opinion ID: 2318171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Preservation Requirement

Text: The first issue raised by Johnson is that the Superior Court erred by not concluding that the failure of the police to gather the clothing from the automobile and the sweatpants from the bedroom violated his constitutionally guaranteed right of access to evidence. [3] In Deberry v. State , [4] this Court recognized that the obligation to preserve evidence is rooted in the due process provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and the Delaware Constitution, article I, section 7. [5] Deberry involved a situation in which the police failed to preserve evidence that was once in their possession. In Lolly v. State , [6] we concluded that Deberry's holding and analysis was equally applicable to claims involving the alleged failure to gather evidence ab initio. [7] In Deberry, the question presented was what relief is appropriate when the State had or should have had the requested evidence, but the evidence does not exist when the defense seeks its production? [8] Answering that inquiry, we held that such claims must be analyzed according to the following paradigm: 1) would the requested material, if extant in the possession of the State at the time of the defense request, have been subject to disclosure under Criminal Rule 16 or Brady [ v. Maryland [9] ]? 2) if so, did the government have a duty to preserve the material? 3) if there was a duty to preserve, was the duty breached, and what consequences should flow from a breach? [10] The consequences that should flow from a breach of the duty to gather or preserve evidence are determined in accordance with a separate three-part analysis which considers: 1) the degree of negligence or bad faith involved, 2) the importance of the missing evidence considering the probative value and reliability of secondary or substitute evidence that remains available, [11] and 3) the sufficiency of the other evidence produced at the trial to sustain the conviction. [12] Under Deberry, [a] claim that potentially exculpatory evidence was lost or destroyed by the State can only be decided after each element of the above analysis has been considered. [13]