State of Tennessee v. Angela M. Merriman
2013 Tenn. LEXIS 641
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Defendant Merriman was stopped for suspected DUI; video from the patrol car documenting the stop was later lost.
- Merriman moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the state's failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence violated due process.
- The trial court conducted a Ferguson-type pretrial analysis and dismissed counts for DUI, reckless endangerment, and reckless driving.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; the State appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- The Court held that Ferguson governs post- and pre-trial losses of evidence, reviews are de novo for fundamental fairness, and remedy is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs Ferguson analysis pre-trial? | Merriman argues de novo review of fairness; the remedy should be discretionary. | State argues de novo for fairness but abuse of discretion for remedy. | De novo review for fairness; abuse of discretion for remedy. |
| Did the State have a duty to preserve the video recording? | Video had potential exculpatory value and no adequate substitute evidence. | State contends no duty to preserve absent contract/obligation. | Yes, duty to preserve; loss violated due process. |
| Was pre-trial Ferguson analysis proper here? | Ferguson analysis can be applied pre-trial to assess fairness. | Pre-trial ruling should defer to later trial if facts intertwined with guilt. | Pre-trial Ferguson analysis permissible; not precluded by Sherman/Goodman. |
| What remedy is appropriate for the lost video evidence? | Dismissal appropriate given loss and minimal remaining evidence. | Remedy could include lesser measures; dismissal not automatic. | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999) (due process balancing for lost evidence; dismissal possible as remedy)
- State v. Sherman, 266 S.W.3d 395 (Tenn. 2008) (pre-trial dismissal considerations when facts intertwined with guilt)
- State v. Goodman, 90 S.W.3d 557 (Tenn. 2002) (pre-trial ruling under Rule 12(b) distinctions; limits on pre-trial dismissal)
- State v. Benn, 713 S.W.2d 308 (Tenn. 1986) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissals in some contexts)
- State v. Harris, 33 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. 2000) (abuse of discretion in dismissal decisions; procedural context)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (de novo review for constitutional questions; deferential as to findings of fact)