State v. Blair, 2014 Ohio 1279

On March 7, 2011 Dayton police stopped a Chevy Impala; officers identified the driver as James Blair, who had an outstanding warrant. Blair was removed, patted down, struggled with Officer Orick, broke free, ran, was tasered and ultimately arrested. A handgun was later found in the street and a magazine in Blair’s pocket.
Orick and Officer Smith gave differing accounts about when and how blows to Orick’s head occurred (standing vs. on the ground). Two passengers provided limited, inconsistent statements.
The patrol cruiser had a VHS in-car camera that automatically recorded when lights were activated. Sergeant Spears reviewed the tape during an internal use-of-force inquiry and attempted to copy it to DVD. During that process the tape was erased and ultimately reused after a 45-day hold.
Blair was indicted about a year later for Assault (Peace Officer) (felony) and Carrying Concealed Weapon (felony); he moved to dismiss based on the destroyed videotape. The trial court denied the motion; Blair later pled no contest to assault and a reduced weapon offense and appealed.
The court of appeals found the erased tape to be materially exculpatory as to the assault charge (could have shown who initiated the violence) and concluded the State failed to preserve it, so it reversed and ordered dismissal of the assault count; it affirmed the concealed-weapon conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether destruction of the in-car VHS required dismissal because the tape was materially exculpatory	Tape was not shown to be materially exculpatory; multiple witnesses could testify and tape would only serve to impeach	Tape was the only objective evidence and would have shown officers initiated force; thus materially exculpatory and not replaceable	Court: Tape was materially exculpatory as to the assault charge; conviction for Assault (Peace Officer) reversed and remanded for dismissal
If tape was only potentially useful, whether State acted in bad faith in its destruction	Destruction was inadvertent negligence during copying; no evidence of intent to mislead; 45-day hold was customary so no bad faith	Even if inadvertent, destruction deprived Blair of uniquely exculpatory evidence; preservation duty not satisfied	Court: Did not need to find bad faith because tape was materially exculpatory; dismissal required as to assault. (Affirmed weapon conviction.)

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process requires dismissal only when state destroys materially exculpatory evidence or acts in bad faith toward potentially useful evidence)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (to be materially exculpatory evidence must be apparent before destruction and not reasonably replaceable)
State v. Powell, 132 Ohio St.3d 233 (2012) (defendant bears burden to show destroyed evidence was materially exculpatory)
State v. Benson, 152 Ohio App.3d 495 (2003) (tape can be the only objective evidence and thus materially exculpatory when testimonial accounts conflict)
State v. Jackson, 57 Ohio St.3d 29 (1991) (allocation of burden regarding destroyed evidence)
State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (2007) (if evidence is only potentially useful, defendant must show bad faith by the State)