State v. Schmidt, 817 N.W.2d 332

Blum reports two unauthorized ATM withdrawals from her Capitol Credit Union account and learns a new ATM card and PIN were mailed to her old address.
Police identify Schmidt and his girlfriend as residing at that old address where Blum’s card was mailed.
Dakota Express surveillance video was requested; a still photo was provided but the full video was later not obtained before it allegedly was overwritten.
Mees, Dakota Express owner, provides a still photo and indicates the video shows a white male; the police never obtain the video itself.
Schmidt is charged with theft of property; he moves to suppress the still photo and to limit testimony about the video, raising Brady and related due process concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State violated Brady by failing to preserve evidence	Schmidt argues the video was favorable, preserved, and destroyed in bad faith.	State asserts no Brady violation because video was never collected or in State's possession.	No Brady violation; State did not possess the video to destroy.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the pre-trial motion to limit testimony about the video	Schmidt contends Mees’s testimony about the video is inadmissible hearsay and violates confrontation rights.	State argues Mees testified as a witness describing personal observations and was cross-examined.	Denial affirmed; Mees’s testimony was not hearsay and did not violate confrontation rights.
Whether the district court properly denied Schmidt’s proposed adverse inference jury instruction	Schmidt argues jury should infer the State destroyed or lost evidence against its interest.	State contends no evidence showed the State had the video to destroy and instruction would mislead.	Instruction properly denied; no evidence the State destroyed the video; Mees was private party.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of material favorable evidence)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (definition of material evidence and its impact on guilt/punishment)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (bad faith required for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause guarantees cross-examination of witnesses)
State v. Steffes, 500 N.W.2d 608 (N.D. 1993) (categories for due process and preservation/collection of evidence)
State v. Ressler, 2005 ND 140 (N.D. 2005) (private party actions and Fourth Amendment considerations)
State v. Seglen, 2005 ND 124 (N.D. 2005) (distinction between private and governmental searches)
State v. Burr, 1999 ND 143 (N.D. 1999) (due process and evidentiary preservation principles in ND law)