State v. Davis, 46013

Jacob S. Davis, a registered sex offender, was convicted in two cases (registration and multiple sexual-offense/possession counts) and sentenced to lengthy prison terms; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
After remittitur, Davis filed pro se motions for a new trial in both cases alleging (1) verdicts contrary to law/evidence and (2) newly discovered evidence: deleted Facebook photographs and a purportedly intercepted confidential letter to counsel.
Davis asserted the State failed to preserve or concealed exculpatory Facebook photos (e.g., camping pictures) that would have shown he was not at the residence when illicit recordings were made; he also claimed a letter showing the State obtained privileged communications.
The district court denied the new-trial motions, finding it could not determine the materiality or likely effect of the unknown Facebook evidence.
On appeal Davis argued the court applied the wrong standard (Drapeau for newly discovered evidence) and should have applied Youngblood (due process for destroyed/preserved evidence), and that the State acted in bad faith; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Davis)	Held
Proper legal standard for a new-trial claim alleging destroyed/exculpatory evidence	Motion was brought under I.C. § 19-2406(7) for newly discovered evidence, so Drapeau applies; prosecutorial-misconduct claims are not cognizable under § 19-2406	Although styled under § 19-2406(7), the substance alleged prosecutorial destruction of evidence and thus should be treated as a Youngblood due-process claim	Court held the district court did not err applying Drapeau because Davis invoked § 19-2406(7) and repeatedly framed the claim as newly discovered evidence; nonetheless the Court reviewed Youngblood on the merits on appeal
Whether Davis established governmental bad faith (Youngblood) in loss/destruction of potentially exculpatory Facebook photos	Deletions were by a witness without the State's knowledge; possession of the letter does not show State knew of exculpatory value or acted in bad faith	The State possessed (and concealed) a confidential letter from Davis to counsel requesting Facebook photos, so it knew of the photos’ exculpatory value and acted in bad faith by not preserving/disclosing them	Court held Davis failed to show bad faith or materiality: record does not show State intercepted/used/concealed the letter, does not show the photos existed or were exculpatory for the crimes charged, and the alleged deletions do not prove governmental bad faith

State v. Drapeau, 97 Idaho 685, 551 P.2d 972 (Idaho 1976) (test for granting new trial on newly discovered evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (failure to preserve potentially useful evidence requires bad faith to establish due-process violation)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (framework for assessing government knowledge of exculpatory value)
State v. Paradis, 110 Idaho 534, 716 P.2d 1306 (Idaho 1986) (Idaho test for lost/destroyed evidence before Youngblood)
State v. Stuart, 127 Idaho 806, 907 P.2d 783 (Idaho 1995) (discussing Youngblood’s impact on Paradis)
State v. Lankford, 162 Idaho 477, 399 P.3d 804 (Idaho 2017) (distinguishing newly discovered evidence claims from prosecutorial-misconduct claims; appellate review of such claims)