State v. Armstrong, 93119-4

Dennis Armstrong was charged with felony violation of a no-contact order (RCW 26.50.110), which elevates the offense to a felony if the violation (1) was an assault or (2) the defendant had two prior protection-order violations.
On April 20, 2014, Armstrong allegedly hit his former partner twice at a bus stop and followed her into an AMPM store; officers observed abrasions on the victim and interviewed Armstrong on-scene with the prospect of store surveillance video.
AMPM surveillance of the incident existed briefly but was destroyed per store policy before police collected it; officers at the scene did not request or preserve the footage and gave varying explanations at trial.
The jury received an instruction that it need not be unanimous as to which alternative (assault or two priors) formed the felony, so long as the jurors unanimously found the elements of the crime proven; Armstrong did not object to the instruction or the prosecutor’s explanation at trial.
The jury returned a general guilty verdict; Armstrong appealed arguing (1) violation of jury-unanimity rights and (2) due-process violation from failure to preserve potentially useful video evidence. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Armstrong)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Jury unanimity as to alternative means	Instruction violated unanimity right because jury might have split on which alternative (assault vs two priors) supported conviction	Where substantial evidence supports each alternative means, unanimity as to means is not required; instruction was correct	Court affirmed: unanimity on means not required when sufficient evidence supports each alternative
Due process for failure to preserve surveillance video	Police used the existence of video in interviews but failed to collect it, showing cavalier or bad-faith conduct that denied ability to present a complete defense	Absent evidence of bad faith or improper motive, failure to preserve potentially useful (not clearly exculpatory) evidence does not violate due process	Court affirmed: Armstrong failed to show police bad faith; mere oversight or negligence insufficient

State v. Sandholm, 184 Wn.2d 726 (discussing alternative-means unanimity rule)
State v. Ortega-Martinez, 124 Wn.2d 702 (same; Court explains sufficiency test for alternative means)
State v. Whitney, 108 Wn.2d 506 (unanimity not required when sufficient evidence supports charged alternatives)
State v. Arndt, 87 Wn.2d 374 (distinguishing alternative means from alternative crimes/elements)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (State must prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (failure to preserve potentially useful evidence requires bad faith to violate due process)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (requirements for preservation of material exculpatory evidence)
State v. Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467 (Washington application of Brady/Trombetta/Youngblood principles)