State v. Steele
442 P.3d 1204
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Nighttime collision with a parked car; an eyewitness saw an SUV crash and called 911, then observed the driver and three passengers briefly before they walked away. The eyewitness later identified Loretta Steele as the driver.
- Responding officer used a tracking dog, located Steele (matching the eyewitness description and wearing a black-and-white-striped shirt), observed signs of intoxication, arrested her, and found the SUV keys on her person.
- Steele was charged with DUI and leaving the scene. At trial, defense stipulated Steele was intoxicated but preserved a misidentification defense (the other female passenger was the driver).
- Defense discovered two days before trial that the 911 call recording requested in discovery had been destroyed under a one-year retention policy; the State provided only dispatch notes (which lacked a descriptive account of occupants).
- After the jury was empaneled, Steele moved to dismiss for a due-process violation claiming the destroyed 911 recording likely contained exculpatory evidence (an initial description that might contradict the eyewitness). The district court denied the motion, finding no demonstrated prejudice; Steele was convicted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether destruction of the 911 recording violated due process by depriving Steele of potentially exculpatory evidence | Steele: recording likely contained eyewitness’s initial description that could have shown misidentification | State: no evidence the call contained any description beyond what dispatch notes show; destruction followed routine retention policy | Court: Steele failed the Tiedemann threshold—no reasonable probability the lost recording was exculpatory; motion to dismiss properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tiedemann, 162 P.3d 1106 (Utah 2007) (establishes defendant must show a reasonable probability lost evidence would be exculpatory)
- State v. DeJesus, 395 P.3d 111 (Utah 2017) (clarifies the reasonable-probability threshold and directs balancing of State culpability and defendant prejudice)
- State v. Mohamud, 395 P.3d 133 (Utah 2017) (holds speculation about what destroyed video might show is insufficient to meet threshold)