474 S.W.3d 17
Tex. App.2015Background
- Appellant was stopped for erratic driving on Jan. 16, 2013; officer observed signs of intoxication and recorded field sobriety tests on dash cam; appellant performed poorly and was arrested.
- Appellant requested preservation of all recordings (including jail booking/intake videos) two weeks after arrest; State produced only the dash cam video.
- Trial court ordered production of jail "sally port/booking/jail" videos, but none were produced; the jail said its systems automatically overwrite recordings (4- and 17-day retention) and did not receive timely notice.
- State provided an in camera production of the arresting officer’s prior personnel file; the court concluded none of it was Brady/Giglio material and the State refused to produce the file to defense.
- At trial the officer was the State’s sole witness; no chemical-test evidence was presented; appellant testified and claimed fatigue and prior knee surgeries explained his poor performance; jury convicted.
- After trial appellant obtained additional documents from the officer’s former employer and moved for new trial alleging newly discovered impeachment material; the trial court denied the motion without a hearing and later denied motions to dismiss and for a spoliation instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burdick) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion for new trial (denial on newly discovered evidence) | Newly obtained personnel records and other materials would impeach the officer and likely change outcome | Evidence at best impeaching; State’s case (admissions + video) was strong; impeachment wouldn’t probably change result | Denial affirmed—new evidence not likely to produce different result; no abuse of discretion |
| 2. Motion for new trial (failure to hold hearing) | Trial court should have held a hearing to develop impeachment proof and audio recording | Court may deny hearing if record shows insufficient reasonable grounds; impeachment evidence was not material to outcome | Denial of hearing affirmed—no reasonable grounds shown that would likely entitle to relief |
| 3. Motion for continuance to investigate officer | Needed additional time to obtain and use personnel file for impeachment | Appellant was not prejudiced because he later received file and impeachment would not likely alter verdict | Denial affirmed—no showing of actual prejudice |
| 4. Motion to dismiss / spoliation instruction (lost jail videos) | Jail booking/intake videos were potentially exculpatory and/or material; State failed to preserve after request; entitled to dismissal or spoliation instruction | Videos were at most potentially useful, not obviously exculpatory; loss due to routine overwrite, no evidence of State bad faith; jury heard spoliation argument | Denial affirmed—videos not materially exculpatory; under Youngblood appellant had to show bad faith and failed to do so; any charge error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor must disclose impeachment evidence bearing on witness credibility)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (loss of potentially useful evidence requires showing of bad faith to violate due process)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (requirements for destroyed evidence to be constitutionally material)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for undisclosed impeachment evidence)
- Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (2004) (pending discovery request does not eliminate bad-faith requirement for lost potentially useful evidence)
- Carsner v. State, 444 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standards for newly discovered evidence entitlement to new trial)