Court Opinion

ID: 9706901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:54:44.068207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:25.829789
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring.
The majority quotes with approval the statement in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), that the due process claim for destruction of exeulpatory evidence cannot be successfully maintained except upon proof by the accused of bad faith on the part of the police. I continue to be convinced that this requirement is overbroad and inconsistent with the promise of a fundamentally fair criminal trial. - Madison v. State (1989), Ind., 534 N.E.2d 702, 707 (concurring opinion of DeBruler, J.). Here, the victim had a notebook with him when he was killed. It is nothing short of gross negligence for the personal effects of a murder victim to be lost or given away during the pendency of murder charges. The evidentiary significance of such things is obvious. In such situations, the State should be required to demonstrate that the defense is not burdened by the loss. Here, however, the question arises in the context of a multi-faceted claim of ineffective counsel, and I agree that, in this instance, this claim is properly rejected.