State v. Mohamud, 2017 UT 23

On Aug 29, 2013, while incarcerated, Mohamud was escorted and searched; Officers Weaver and Auelua discovered a metal shank in his sock. Mohamud was charged with possessing a prohibited item and convicted after a jury trial; sentenced to 1–15 years.
Defense requested surveillance video of the incident; State informed them recordings are routinely overwritten after ~30 days and any August 29 footage was likely recorded over before charges were filed (43 days later).
Mohamud moved to dismiss, arguing the lost video was destroyed by the State and there was a reasonable probability it would have been exculpatory (e.g., could have impeached officers). At the hearing defense counsel conceded the Tiedemann reasonable-probability threshold.
The only hearing testimony about cameras was equivocal: an investigator said cameras exist and usually record but he did not view or preserve footage and could not confirm a recording for that date/time.
Trial court denied dismissal for lack of a showing that a recording existed or that any lost recording was reasonably likely to be exculpatory; Mohamud was later convicted and appealed.

Issue	Mohamud's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Proper legal standard for due‑process claims when evidence is lost/destroyed	Tiedemann should not require a threshold showing; any destruction warrants inquiry into State culpability and prejudice	Tiedemann requires a threshold showing that lost evidence had a reasonable probability of being exculpatory	Court: Tiedemann requires a threshold showing of a reasonable probability that lost evidence would have been exculpatory; without it no due‑process claim lies
2. Whether counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the Tiedemann threshold	Counsel was ineffective for agreeing to a standard unfavorable to Mohamud	Counsel reasonably followed controlling precedent; not deficient performance	Court: No ineffective assistance—agreeing with the correct law was reasonable
3. Whether lost surveillance footage violated due process in this case	The video likely would have impeached officers and thus was exculpatory	Mohamud failed to proffer anything beyond speculation about what the video would show	Court: Mohamud failed to show a reasonable probability the footage would have been exculpatory; no due‑process violation
4. Remedy/relief requested (dismissal)	Dismissal required if lost evidence was materially exculpatory	Dismissal not warranted absent threshold showing and balancing under Tiedemann	Court: Denial of dismissal affirmed — no threshold met, so no further remedy analysis reached

State v. Tiedemann, 162 P.3d 1106 (Utah 2007) (establishes test requiring a threshold showing of a reasonable probability that lost or destroyed evidence would have been exculpatory, then balancing State culpability and prejudice)
State v. DeJesus, 395 P.3d 111 (Utah 2017) (applies and clarifies Tiedemann; affirms the reasonable‑probability threshold; discussed contemporaneously with Mohamud)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Jackson, 243 P.3d 902 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (court of appeals decision whose interpretation of Tiedemann was discussed but later disavowed in the context of the threshold issue)
State v. Otkovic, 322 P.3d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (court of appeals decision clarifying that a reasonable‑probability threshold exists under Tiedemann)