State v. Porter, Jr., 103 A.3d 916

Porter appeals his conviction for attempted kidnapping after a March 2012 trial.
Key identification issue: truck matched by video from a city bus camera.
Police eliminated other similar trucks based on owners’ out-of-court statements presented by detectives.
Witness testimony included eyewitness identification and expert challenges to police procedures.
The State failed to preserve and test certain potentially exculpatory evidence; defense sought dismissal or sanctions.
Court reverses and remands on multiple evidentiary and due-process grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of officers’ elimination testimony	Elimination testimony based on others’ statements violates Rule 602	Statements lacked personal knowledge and were hearsay	Reversed for admission of officer testimony
Eyewitness identification reliability	Identification admissible under Manson/Kasper framework	Due process and Rule 403 concerns; suggestive circumstances	Remains admissible but subject to remand due to other errors
Preservation/testing of exculpatory evidence	State failed to preserve/test potentially exculpatory material	Dismissing sanction not warranted; Bailey factors weigh	Remanded; Bailey analysis to be reweighed on retrial
Exclusion of defense expert on police procedures	Expert could illuminate police-notes handling; relevant	Evidence not relevant or admissible	Reversed and remanded on this issue for further proceedings
Discovery/production issues and earlier motions	Discovery failures prejudiced defense	Not independently grounds for reversal	Remanded for potential reconsideration of motions on retrial

State v. Decoteau, 182 Vt. 433 (2007 VT 94) (preservation of objection to admissibility of evidence under Rule 602)
In re Estate of Maggio, 193 Vt. 1 (2012 VT 99) (admission of evidence involving statements by others)
United States v. Davis, 596 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (hearsay/Rule 602 objection standards)
Elizarraras v. Bank of El Paso, 631 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1980) (hearsay and personal knowledge distinctions)
State v. Okumura, 894 P.2d 80 (Haw. 1995) (Rule 602 personal knowledge interplay with hearsay)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (identification reliability framework for suggestive identifications)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (due process not implicated when identification not arranged by police)
Bailey, 144 Vt. 86 (1984) (Bailey test for sanction when exculpatory evidence is not preserved)
Gibney, 2003 VT 26 (2003 VT 26) (adopts Bailey-based due-process standard under Article 10)
Delisle, 162 Vt. 293 (1994) (states Bailey standard for preservation of evidence violation)
Wheelock, 158 Vt. 302 (1992) (flexible Bailey analysis for sanctions)
Brillon, 2010 VT 25 (2010 VT 25) (prejudice analysis for evidentiary error)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process and missing evidence standard)