State v. Faunce, 282 P.3d 960

Nakamoto was convicted of murder with a firearm and felon in possession of a firearm; he appeals denial of dismissal for failure to preserve exculpatory evidence and evidentiary ruling limiting Green-related testimony.
Adams was killed Sep 21, 2004; police suspected a black powder weapon; physical evidence included a black powder revolver, wadding, Pyrodex, and a lead ball with inconclusive ballistic comparison.
Brad Green, a transient, was later found with a similar black powder pistol; his pistol and related notes were not disclosed timely to Nakamoto; police conducted a polygraph and returned the pistol to Green.
Green’s weapon was not preserved or tested by the state; the motion to dismiss based on failure to preserve exculpatory evidence was denied.
The trial court admitted Green-related testimony for minimal relevance (transients with black powder weapons) but limited its use to non-impeachment purposes; Nakamoto was convicted and appeals followed.
The appellate court upheld the conviction, ruling Green’s weapon was at best potentially useful, not material exculpatory evidence, and that any evidentiary error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of exculpatory evidence violated due process?	State argues due process required preservation; evidence was material or potentially exculatory.	Nakamoto contends failure to preserve Green’s weapon violated due process; could affect guilt.	No due process violation; evidence was at most potentially useful and not material exculpatory.
Admissibility of Green evidence to impeach police investigation?	State contends Green evidence irrelevant to investigation integrity.	Nakamoto argues it shows improper investigation by showing other transients had black powder weapons.	Evidence relevant but the error was harmless; conviction affirmed.
Is Green’s weapon material exculpatory or merely potentially useful?	State contends weapon could have exculpated or favored defense.	Nakamoto argues weapon could exonerate; microbiology of testing could be favorable.	Weapon was at best potentially useful; not the kind of material exculpatory evidence required for reversal.

State v. Zinsli, 156 Or App 245 (Or. App. 1998) (identical analysis for due process and preservation issues)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 408 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (standards for preservation of evidence and materiality)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (bad faith for potentially useful evidence; material vs. potentially useful distinction)
Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (material vs. potentially useful evidence; applicability of Youngblood standard)
State v. Hendershott, 131 Or App 531 (Or. App. 1994) (forensic testing limits and speculative value of testing)