People v. Handy, 20 N.Y.3d 663

Defendant charged with three assaults on three deputy sheriffs during jail events; acquitted on counts 1 and 3, convicted on count 2.
Video camera in the cell block allegedly captured part of the November 8 incident; camera footage was destroyed before trial per jail policy after 30 days.
Defendant requested preservation and viewing of video evidence; People asserted discovery was complete and that any videotapes could be viewed if available.
Trial court granted an adverse inference charge for the January 2007 incident but denied the same for the November 2006 incidents.
Appellate Division affirmed the conviction on count 2; defendant sought review, claiming entitlement to an adverse inference for counts 1 and 2.
Court adopts a rule that, under New York law, a permissive adverse inference charge is warranted where a diligent request for material reasonably likely to be important is met with State destruction of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should an adverse inference charge apply to destroyed November video evidence?	Handy; defendant entitled due to preservation request and destruction.	Handy; the charge should extend to counts 1 and 2 as the destroyed video was potentially exculpatory.	Yes; adverse inference should apply to all counts.
Does NY law require considering preservation destruction under Youngblood or Cost?	Cost framework supports a permissive inference when evidence was destroyed after reasonable diligence.	Youngblood limits are not the sole applicable framework; no need to revisit constitutional grounds.	Adverse inference rule adopted under NY law, aligned with Cost; not in tension with Youngblood.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process violation for suppression of favorable evidence when material)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (duty to disclose omitted evidence if it creates reasonable doubt)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (preservation duty limited to evidence likely to play a significant role)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (no due process violation absent bad faith where potentially useful evidence is lost)
People v Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46 (N.Y. 2011) (rejection of requirement to affirmatively obtain evidence for defendant's benefit)
Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360 (Md. 2010) (permissible missing evidence instruction when evidence destroyed)
People v. Handy, 83 A.D.3d 1454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (discussion of whether video was exculpatory and thus Brady material)
People v. Jardin, 88 N.Y.2d 956 (N.Y. 1996) (avoidance of obligation to gather DNA semen evidence)
People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929 (N.Y. 1988) (destroyed evidence had little or no relevance to main issue)
People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. 1984) (rejection of dismissal for failure to preserve evidence)
Savionon v. State, 100 N.Y.2d 192 (N.Y. 2003) (missing witness instruction for witness under control)