Court Opinion

ID: 9707988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:26:47.684812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:41.063625
License: Public Domain

Liacos, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). The court fails to focus adequately on the distinction between the nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence, see Commonwealth v. Gallarelli, 399 Mass. 17 (1987), which involves the concepts of fair trial and due process, see United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), and the destruction or loss of evidence which involves a problem of the same genre, but in a markedly different way. As Judge J. Skelly Wright put it in United States v. Bryant, 439 F.2d 642, 644 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (Bryant I): “Beside the carefully safeguarded fairness of the courtroom is a dark no-man’s-land of unreviewed bureaucratic and discretionary decision making. Too often, what the process purports to *435secure in its formal stages can be subverted or diluted in its more informal stages.”
Bryant I previously has been cited with approval by this court in cases relied upon in the court’s present opinion. See Commonwealth v. Shipps, 399 Mass. 820, 835 (1987); Commonwealth v. Charles, 397 Mass. 1, 14 (1986); Commonwealth v. Neal, 392 Mass. 1, 12 (1984). In Charles, supra, we stated: “The loss of evidence presents special problems.”1 Id. Other States have recognized that loss or destruction cases, while derived from Brady principles, require special scrutiny. See, e.g., State v. Bailey, 144 Vt. 86, 94-95 (1984). In Bailey, the court, relying on Bryant I, recognized that the government should be held to the standard of showing “earnest efforts” to preserve crucial materials. A similar approach was taken in State v. Wright, 87 Wash. 2d 783, 791-792 (1976); cf. State v. Vaster, 99 Wash. 2d 44, 52 (1983). As I read these cases, the “balancing” which our court suggests appropriate comes only after a determination of “earnest efforts” (or lack thereof) is made, to decide what the remedy ought to be in its absence. See United States v. Bryant, 448 F.2d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (Bryant II) (affirming result after initial remand by Bryant I, supra); State v. Vaster, supra. In People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 520 (1984), the New York Court of Appeals stated (following Bryant I): “[Wjhere discoverable evidence gathered by the prosecution or its agent is lost, the People have a heavy burden of establishing that diligent, good-faith efforts were made to prevent the loss .... Otherwise, sanctions will be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied.) (Citations omitted.) The court went on to say, id. at 521: “Although the choice of ‘appropriate’ action is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, as a general matter the drastic remedy of dismissal should not be invoked where less severe measures can rectify the harm done by the loss of evidence.” But see State v. Escalante, 153 Ariz. 55, 61-62 (Ct. App. 1986) (dismissal required where *436identity of rapist was in issue, and police permitted deterioration of semen stains resulting in loss of PGM-test evidence with potential to eliminate defendant as perpetrator).
Accordingly, I would answer the reported questions as follows: Question 1; “Yes.” Question 2; no answer. This is a matter for the trial judge to determine. Question 3; if the judge answered Question 2 in the negative, the answer must be determined under the test set forth in Commonwealth v. Neal, supra.2 Question 4; dismissal is warranted only if no lesser remedy will ensure a fair trial to the defendant.3

 Charles was written by the author of the majority opinion in this case. I am somewhat surprised, therefore, that he now states for the court that we “decline” to adopt the Bryant I standard. Ante at 431.

 The findings of the judge make it clear that the State chemist received the materials on July 15, 1984, but the defendant’s request for preservation did not come to the chemist’s attention until at least August 1, 1984. Thus, it seems to me that whether the Commonwealth met its burden is a question not for report but for the trial judge to decide. On this ground I agree that we should not address Question 2. Similar reasons should pertain to a declination by this court to answer Question 3.

 I agree with the court’s conclusion that, in this case, if a sanction is warranted, an appropriate sanction might “exclude or limit the use of the Commonwealth’s [scientific] evidence.” Ante at 434. I note that the Commonwealth also concedes that if a sanction is warranted, this type of remedy would be “fitting and appropriate.”