Court Opinion

ID: 9749607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:53:39.343846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:53.702586
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring.
I write separately because I believe that the majority should more fully explain why the destruction of the videotape that would show what occurred during the robbery did not require reversal for the denial of a spoliation instruction.
Appellant timely requested preservation of the best evidence of what occurred during the robbery and of the degree of his culpability. Only the police, not Appellant, could seize evidence at the crime scene.1 Although Appellant could have subpoenaed the videotape, there was no trial date, *685hearing, or deposition schedule that would have justified a subpoena. At trial, the State elicited evidence of the contents of the.videotape, and, because the videotape had been destroyed, Appellant was unable to challenge the accuracy of the testimony.
I agree with Appellant that the State had a duty to preserve the videotape. The State should have seized and preserved the videotape. But the police were unaware that the videotape would be destroyed and did not themselves ever have possession of the videotape. Appellant has not claimed that the State destroyed or encouraged others to destroy the videotape or that the State even knew that others would destroy it. Appellant also does not ask us to hold that the trial court erred by allowing the detective to testify to the contents of the videotape. Thus, that issue is not before this court.
Is spoliation the same as failure to preserve the evidence? If not, Appellant was not entitled to a spoliation instruction because no party, either directly or indirectly, destroyed the videotape. The Texas Supreme Court has defined spoliation as “an evidentiary concept that allows ‘the factfinder to deduce guilt from the destruction of presumably incriminating evidence.’ ”2 Because there was no showing in the trial court that the State caused or knowingly allowed the videotape to be destroyed, Appellant was not entitled to a spoliation instruction.
I therefore respectfully concur in the result only.

. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 18.01 (Vernon Supp.2009).

. Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 843 (Tex.2004) (citing Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 952 (Tex.1998)).