County
Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW –
destruction or loss of evidence – trial court erred in dismissing charge
based on destruction or loss of videotape depicting appellant’s participation
in field sobriety test – trial judge did not find that the videotape was material
and favorable to the accused or that law enforcement acted in bad faith –
Order reversed and case remanded. State v. Eno, No. 01-08085 (
IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF
APPELLATE
DIVISION
STATE
OF
Appellant,
vs.
APPEAL
NO: CRC01-08085CFANO
EDWARD
SCOTT ENO,
Appellee.
/
Opinion filed April _____, 2003.
Appeal from a decision of the
County
Court for
William H. Overton, Judge.
Wendy L. Pepper, Esquire
Assistant State Attorney.
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire
Attorney for Appellee.
ORDER
AND OPINION
The State appeals from the trial court’s order granting Eno’s motion to dismiss, which was based on the destruction or loss of a videotape depicting Eno’s participation in a field sobriety test (i.e., Rhomberg Alphabet Test). We have reviewed the trial judge’s written order dated April 26, 2001. Based on that order, we reverse and remand.
The history of this case is as follows. On April 7, 1999, the trial judge originally granted Eno’s motion to dismiss. The State then appealed. On April 25, 2000, this court, albeit a different appellate panel, reversed and remanded with directions for the trial judge to consider the bad faith requirement discussed in Arizona v. Youngblood, 109 S. Ct. 333 (1988). On remand, the trial judge again granted Eno’s motion to dismiss. This appeal follows. In his written order dated April 26, 2001, the trial judge made the following findings:
This court finds that the destroyed videotape of the defendant performing the Field Sobriety Test, made by Deputy Haimes maybe [sic] beneficial to the defendant and therefore exculpatory in nature. The defendant testified the tape would be beneficial because the videotape captured the defendant’s speech, balance, and ability to perform the Rhomberg alphabet test. This was in conflict with Deputy Haimes [sic] testimony. This court did not specifically reject Deputy Haimes’ testimony but found this one-against-one situation, bases [sic] upon Mitchell, was sufficient to meet the Youngblood standard and granted the Motion to Dismiss. This court does not find any bad faith by Deputy Haimes. [1]
A
distinction must be made concerning lost, destroyed, or suppressed evidence. When potentially exculpatory evidence
is destroyed by the State, there must be a finding of bad faith on the part
of law enforcement before a defendant is deprived of due process. Youngblood, 109
As to potentially exculpatory evidence, the landmark case of Youngblood, and all cases since, requires a defendant to show bad faith on the part of the person destroying the evidence before any relief can be afforded. In Youngblood, the United States Supreme Court held:
But we think the Due Process Clause requires a different result when we deal with the failure of the State to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant.... We therefore hold that unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law. (emphasis added).
Youngblood,
109
Here, the trial judge found that the videotape may be “beneficial to
the defendant and therefore exculpatory in nature.”
The trial judge also found that law enforcement did not act
in bad faith. Without a showing that
law enforcement destroyed the videotape in bad faith, or without a showing
that the videotape was material and favorable to the accused,
[2]
the dismissal of charges was not warranted.
State v. Thomas, 826 So. 2d 1048 (
We vacate the trial judge’s order granting Eno’s motion to dismiss. We reverse and remand with directions for the county court to reinstate the charges against Eno.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
____________________________________
JOHN A. SCHAEFER, Circuit Judge
____________________________________
W. DOUGLAS BAIRD, Circuit Judge
____________________________________
NANCY MOATE LEY, Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney’s Office
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire