Duffy v. State
2012 ND 111
N.D.2012Background
- Blum reported two unauthorized ATM withdrawals on Oct 31, 2010, after Capitol Credit Union sent a new card and PIN to Blum's old address.
- Police linked the mail address to Schmidt and his girlfriend; investigations covered Central Market and Dakota Express surveillance.
- Dakota Express surveillance video existed; owner Mees provided a still photo after the video was overwritten.
- Officer arrested Schmidt after questioning about mail addressed to others and after obtaining Mees's still photo tied to the time of a withdrawal.
- Schmidt moved to suppress the still photo and any testimony about the video, and sought to limit related testimony and exclude the video; district court denied.
- A jury convicted Schmidt of theft of property; court affirmed on appeal, holding no abuse of discretion or Brady/Constitutional violation and proper handling of evidence issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation for failure to preserve video | State alleges no due process violation; evidence not collected/preserved by State. | Schmidt contends the video was material, exculpatory, and improperly destroyed or not preserved. | No Brady violation; State did not destroy or suppress preserved evidence; first-Steffes category applies. |
| Pre-trial in limine to limit testimony about still photo/video | State's testimony should be limited to what is verifiably stated or shown by the video. | Mees's observations of the video should be excluded as improperly elicited. | District court did not abuse discretion; testimony about the video properly admitted and cross-examined. |
| Proposed jury instruction adverse inference for lost evidence | Jury could infer State destroyed or lost relevant evidence. | No evidence the State possessed or destroyed the video; Mees private, not State agent. | Instruction properly denied; no basis to infer destruction by the State. |
| Suppression motion ruling (due process/collecting evidence) | State failed to preserve/provide favorable evidence. | Video was never collected/posessed by State; no duty to preserve private video. | District court correctly denied suppression; record shows State lacked video in its possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of material exculpatory evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence; reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality and discovery of favorable evidence; aiding due process)
- Brady (cited in ND context as Brady v. Maryland), 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (fundamental Brady framework used by North Dakota courts)
- State v. Steffes, 500 N.W.2d 608 (N.D. 1993) (three-category framework for failure to preserve evidence; first category applies when not collected by State)