State v. Munford, 2010 WI App 168

Munford was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide after a trial with multiple eyewitnesses identifying him as the shooter.
Police seized and later examined Munford's van; a bullet hole and possible bullet hole evidence were observed but no bullet was recovered.
The van was destroyed/scrapped in April 2007 after notices to Munford's address, which he did not receive while in custody.
Defense later learned of the destruction in November 2007; Munford moved to dismiss the case for destruction of evidence in December 2007.
The trial court ruled the van’s destruction did not violate due process and that Munford had access to photos and reports; the court allowed limited references to destruction but not the destroyer’s identity or motives.
Munford was tried in September 2008, resulting in a guilty verdict; he appeals on due process and evidentiary-discretion grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was due process violated by destroying the van?	Munford contends exculpatory value was apparent and evidence was not reasonably preserved.	Munford argues the van was potentially exculpatory and the State acted in bad faith.	No due process violation; exculpatory value not apparent and no bad faith.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by restricting the defense from highlighting the van's destruction to the jury?	The destruction bore on Detective Gastrow's credibility and Martin's ability to examine evidence.	Limitations were necessary to avoid confusion; alternatives exist to attack credibility.	No reversible error; evidentiary ruling was within discretion and harmless.

State v. Greenwold, 181 Wis. 2d 881 (Ct. App. 1994) (exculpatory evidence preservation standard; appearance of exculpatory value)
State v. Greenwold, 189 Wis. 2d 59 (Ct. App. 1994) (bad faith/possibly exculpatory evidence preservation)
State v. Oinas, 125 Wis.2d 487 (Ct. App. 1985) (apparently exculpatory evidence; reasonable means to obtain comparable evidence)
State v. Britt, 203 Wis.2d 25 (Ct. App. 1996) (harmless error doctrine; evidentiary preservation rulings)
Mercer v. State, 324 Wis.2d 506 (Wis. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings; balancing probative value and prejudice)
State v. Tucker, 259 Wis.2d 484 (Wis. 2003) (constitutional fact review; evidentiary rulings standard)
State v. Campbell, 294 Wis.2d 100 (Wis. 2006) (right to present a defense and admissibility limits)
State v. Muckerheide, 298 Wis.2d 553 (Wis. 2007) (limitations on presenting evidence)