State v. Barron, 2011 Ohio 2425

Barron was indicted for cocaine possession after a urine sample tested positive in March 2008.
Barron moved in Aug. 2008 for an order to have part of the sample provided for independent testing.
The court granted a partial order in Oct. 2008, requiring the State to make the sample available to Barron for testing.
MVRCL held the sample; defense counsel sought testing but learned the sample had been refrigerated, not frozen.
MVRCL later destroyed the sample in March 2009 after holding it for at least one year, without Barron’s knowledge.
Barron moved again in May 2009 to dismiss or suppress the results based on failure to preserve the sample; the court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2925.51(E) applies to Barron.	Barron argued 2925.51(E) applies because he was accused under R.C. 2925.11(A).	Barron contends preservation rights exist under 2925.51(E) regardless of charging chapter.	Yes, 2925.51(E) applies; however, it does not compel suppression.
Whether destruction of the urine sample violated due process.	Destruction prevented independent testing that could have exonerated Barron.	Destruction occurred without bad faith and the sample was potentially useful, not exculpatory.	Destruction was not a due-process violation absent bad faith; no suppression required.
Whether Crim.R. 16 sanctions should have suppressed the evidence.	Crim.R. 16 sanctions could remedy noncompliance with discovery.	There was no clear violation of a court order; the sample was made available for testing.	Trial court did not abuse its discretion; no suppression of results.

State v. Lowe, 86 Ohio App.3d 749 (Ohio App.3d 1993) (urine analysis alone not proof of knowledge/possession; testing limits)
State v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (due process requires bad-faith destruction of potentially useful evidence)
State v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (destruction of potentially useful evidence requires bad faith when no exculpatory value)