111 So. 3d 943
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bennett is charged with grand theft and battery after a confrontation at a gas station store.
- The altercation involved Bennett, his friend Murray, Barron (the victim), and Rodriguez driving the car.
- Video evidence of the altercation was not preserved; the original recording was erased.
- A detective had viewed the video and prepared a report but later learned the video was not downloaded and had been replaced with still photographs.
- Bennett moved to dismiss, arguing the missing video could impeach witnesses and was defense-friendly evidence; the trial court considered dismissal but expressed uncertainty about exculpatory value.
- The appellate court ultimately reverses the dismissal and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether missing video evidence violated due process due to materiality | Bennettargues the video was materially exculpatory | State contends it was potentially useful, not material | Video not constitutionally material; reversed and remanded |
| Burden to show material exculpatory value vs potentially useful evidence | Bennett contends Trombetta materiality applies | State disputes burden allocation; defense can obtain eyewitness testimony | Not needed to decide burden; evidence not material exculpatory |
| Bad faith standard for destruction of potentially useful evidence | Bennett relies on Youngblood bad faith requirement | State asserts no bad faith, only negligence | Bad faith not shown; nevertheless the remedy is not dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (materiality of evidence; exculpatory value before destruction)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (bad faith standard for potentially useful evidence)
- Bennett v. State, 23 So.3d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (burden unsettled on material vs potentially useful; cited for context)
- Bell v. State, 835 So.2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (standard of review for due process claims; de novo review)
- State v. Powers, 555 So.2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (bad faith described as flagrant prejudice to defense)