State of Delaware v. Martha Mingucha, 1609002481

Defendant Martha Mingucha was arrested for DUI on September 4, 2016; an MVR (mobile video recording) of the incident existed.
The State failed to produce the MVR by the court-ordered deadline; defendant moved to suppress the MVR.
At a January 31, 2017 hearing the court suppressed use of the MVR in the State’s case-in-chief but provided the defense a copy and allowed the MVR for impeachment or the defense’s affirmative use.
The State was nevertheless allowed to offer the arresting officer’s testimony about events shown on the MVR.
Defendant then moved to suppress the officer’s testimony, arguing (1) Deberry applies, (2) the Best Evidence Rule bars secondary testimony, and (3) admitting testimony would encourage future discovery violations.
The court issued a final decision denying suppression of the officer’s testimony and upheld its prior discovery sanction excluding the MVR from the State’s case-in-chief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mingucha)	Held
Applicability of Deberry (lost/destroyed evidence doctrine)	Deberry inapplicable because MVR was not lost or destroyed; it was produced late	Deberry requires suppression because State’s failure to produce functionally deprived defense of evidence	Denied — Deberry test contemplates substitute evidence; officer testimony serves as substitute; no showing of bad faith or loss/destruction
Best Evidence Rule (requiring original recording)	Secondary evidence (officer testimony) is admissible when original exists but was not produced in bad faith	MVR is the best evidence of events; testimony about the MVR violates the rule	Denied — MVR is a recording/photograph of events (not a standalone proof like an intoxilyzer card); DRE 1004 permits secondary evidence when originals aren’t lost/destroyed and no bad faith exists
Deterrence of future discovery violations / adequacy of sanction	Existing suppression of the MVR at trial is an appropriate, case-specific Rule 16 sanction; courts have discretion to tailor remedies	Suppression of officer testimony is needed to avoid rewarding or incentivizing bad faith withholding of MVRs	Denied — court found no evidence of bad faith, the Rule 16 sanction was tailored to this violation, and broader suppression is not warranted absent a showing of significant prejudice or intentional misconduct

Deberry v. State, 457 A.2d 744 (Del. 1983) (establishes test for remedy when state loses or destroys evidence and factors for relief)