Harness v. State
58 So. 3d 1
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Harness, charged with aggravated DUI causing death, was convicted and sentenced to 25 years with 10 years suspend/5 years probation; blood sample testing and preservation issues arose; crime lab destroyed Harness’s blood sample after a motion for independent testing; district attorney delayed preservation despite timely discovery requests; trial court denied suppression and admission of blood-test results at trial; Mississippi Rule 9.04 and Miss. Code §63-11-13 provide testing rights and discovery duties; this Court granted certiorari and initially reversed but granted rehearing and substituted decision affirming.
- Harness’s blood was tested multiple times with initial results outside lab’s standard deviation, not reported, then re-tested; the lab indicated exculpatory value was not apparent before destruction; defense sought independent testing under statute and due process; the district attorney’s office coordinated with the lab after actions, but the sample had already been destroyed; the issue centers on whether destruction violated due process given Harness’s right to independent testing under state law and due process principles; the Court limited its review to the third assignment of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did destruction of the blood sample violate due process given Harness’s right to independent testing? | Harness | State | No due-process violation under Trombetta framework (first prong not met) |
| Did the blood sample have exculpatory value before destruction? | Harness | State | Blood sample did not have exculpatory value apparent before destruction |
| Does Mississippi law provide a broader due-process or statutory right to independent testing than Trombetta/Youngblood? | Harness | State | Mississippi law affords greater protection; destruction still did not satisfy first prong; court upholds denial of dismissal |
| Was the State’s handling of preservation duties and prosecution responsibilities improper under state law? | Harness | State | Affirmed; no due-process violation found under the applicable standard |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (established the test for destruction of evidence when it might play a role in defense)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1988) (added bad-faith requirement to Trombetta's test)
- Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368 (Miss. 1987) (Mississippi applies Trombetta/Youngblood standards in state cases; discusses duty to preserve evidence)
- Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss. 1972) (recognizes right to independent testing under Miss. implied consent statute as due process protection)
- Jackson v. State, 243 So.2d 896 (Miss. 1971) (early recognition of due process when defendant denied independent testing of seized substance)