State v. DeJesus
2017 UT 22
| Utah | 2017Background
- On Sept. 27, 2013 an altercation occurred in Utah State Prison involving inmate Lissette DeJesus, inmate Fatima Kahn, and Corrections Officer Ronald Hansen; Hansen reported being kicked by DeJesus.
- Surveillance footage captured the incident, but a permanent copy was not made and the recording was erased after prison retention (about 50 days); investigator Debbie Kemp had asked for a copy but delayed follow-up.
- State charged DeJesus with assault by a prisoner; defense requested video in discovery and the State later said no video existed.
- At an evidentiary hearing one defense witness (DeJesus’s fiancée, Ataata) testified the parties were all on the ground and DeJesus intended to strike Kahn, not Hansen; another potentially favorable witness invoked the Fifth after the State suggested recharging her.
- District court denied DeJesus’s motion to dismiss under State v. Tiedemann, finding she failed the threshold reasonable-probability showing and that State’s negligence was not severe enough to require dismissal; DeJesus entered a conditional plea and appealed.
- Utah Supreme Court reviews whether Tiedemann requires a threshold showing and whether dismissal was warranted given loss of the footage; it reverses and orders dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeJesus) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tiedemann requires a threshold showing that lost evidence was reasonably probable to be exculpatory | Tiedemann should not impose a threshold; court should balance factors without requiring reasonable-probability first | Tiedemann does include a threshold reasonable-probability requirement | Court reaffirmed that Tiedemann requires a threshold reasonable-probability showing that lost evidence would be exculpatory |
| Standard for what qualifies as a "reasonable probability" | Lower, permissive standard: a non-speculative proffer suffices; need not prove exactly what the evidence would show | District court applied a stricter standard requiring evidence showing the recording would in fact be exculpatory | Court held the reasonable-probability standard is low: a non-speculative proffer that is not wholly incredible satisfies it |
| Application of Tiedemann factors (culpability & prejudice) to lost surveillance footage | Loss was prejudicial given the he-said/she-said nature of the case, witness issues, and centrality of video; dismissal appropriate | State argued footage would have supported its case and that failure to preserve was negligent, not intentional; dismissal unnecessary | Court held State’s negligence (not gross) but the prejudice was severe given the evidentiary posture; balancing supports dismissal |
| Proper remedy for failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence | Dismissal is appropriate where threshold met and factors weigh heavily in defendant’s favor | Sanctions short of dismissal or allowance of State’s reconstruction may suffice | Court held dismissal appropriate here though Tiedemann allows a range of remedies; reversed district court and ordered dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tiedemann, 162 P.3d 1106 (Utah 2007) (establishes Utah two-step test: threshold reasonable probability of exculpatory value, then balance culpability and prejudice)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (federal "bad faith" rule for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process when material to guilt or punishment)
- State v. Mohamud, 395 P.3d 133 (Utah 2017) (companion Utah decision applying Tiedemann; cited for reasonable-probability application)
- State v. Delisle, 648 A.2d 632 (Vt. 1994) (influential state-court model requiring a showing that lost evidence had reasonable possibility of being exculpatory before weighing negligence and prejudice)