55 A.3d 360
Del.2012Background
- Hunter, the defendant-appellant, was convicted of Assault in the Second Degree, Resisting Arrest with Force or Violence, and DUI after a jury trial; the DUI BAC result of 0.12% was admitted over objections.
- The BAC result was challenged on two grounds: (1) the blood test kit had an expiration date, and (2) the collection instructions for mixing the sample were not followed.
- The trial court admitted the BAC evidence despite these challenges; defense moved for judgments of acquittal on Assault and Resisting Arrest due to preservation issues; the DVR recording of police-station events was not preserved.
- The DVR system overwrites recordings after 28 days, and the State could not produce the relevant footage; defense sought a Deberry missing-evidence remedy, and a Deberry framework was applied.
- The court reversed the DUI conviction due to improper BAC foundation but affirmed Assault and Resisting Arrest convictions, ruling the missing-evidence remedy was sufficient and did not mandate acquittals, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The opinion discusses Deberry v. State, Rule 16 duties, and the standard for evaluating missing-evidence harm, with emphasis on ensuring due process when evidence is lost.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BAC results | Hunter argues BAC inadmissible due to expired kit and shaken sample. | Hunter contends manufacturer protocol not followed, undermining reliability. | BAC inadmissible; DUI conviction reversed. |
| Duty to preserve DVR recording | State failed to preserve DVR; missing evidence could be favorable. | Missing DVR should lead to dismissal of charged offenses. | Duty breached; analysis under Deberry; no dismissal required. |
| Remedy for missing evidence | Without DVR, fundamental fairness demands acquittal. | Missing-evidence instruction suffices; trial fair. | Missing-evidence instruction adequate; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clawson v. State, 867 A.2d 187 (Del. 2005) (inadmissibility when protocol not followed)
- Deberry v. State, 457 A.2d 744 (Del. 1983) (duty to preserve evidence and consequences under missing evidence)
- Lolly v. State, 611 A.2d 956 (Del. 1992) (missing evidence instruction doctrine)
- Johnson v. State, 27 A.3d 541 (Del. 2011) (complete preclusion when case-dispositive evidence not preserved)
- Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81 (Del. 1989) (preservation and due process considerations; cites standard)