State v. Young, 161 Conn.App. 552

Background

Police responded to a domestic assault complaint; officers arrested Michael A. Young after a physical struggle in which pepper spray and duct tape were used. Young was convicted by a jury of interfering with and assaulting a police officer and, after a separate part B trial, of committing the offenses while on release on bond; he received a 12-year sentence plus five years special parole.
Young moved to preserve all audio/video/electronic evidence (police cruiser and station cameras) asserting such footage would show police misconduct and his injuries; the State’s Attorney’s office sent a preservation memorandum to the state police covering two case numbers.
The state police preserved evidence for the other case but failed to preserve recordings for Young’s case. Young moved to dismiss several counts for the loss of evidence and alternatively sought an adverse-inference jury instruction.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, found the missing evidence had little or no value and that the police’s failure was inadvertent, and declined to give an adverse-inference instruction; the court read a stipulation to the jury about the preservation failure.
Defense counsel argued the preservation failure in closing but did not submit a written request to charge on adverse inference nor except to the final jury charge after the court repeatedly provided proposed instructions and solicited objections; the court found counsel had affirmatively accepted the charge.
On appeal the defendant argued the court erred by refusing an adverse-inference instruction and that his due process rights were violated; the Appellate Court affirmed, concluding the claim was unpreserved and waived under State v. Kitchens.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Young)	Held
whether an adverse-inference jury instruction was required for police failure to preserve electronic evidence	no instruction required; missing evidence was of no value and loss was inadvertent	State’s failure to preserve video/electronic evidence deprived Young of due process and at minimum warranted an adverse-inference instruction	trial court did not err on the merits in denying dismissal and refused adverse-inference instruction; appellate review foreclosed due to waiver/unpreserved issue
whether Young preserved instructional-error claim for appeal under Practice Book § 42-16	claim unpreserved because no written request to charge and no exception to final charge	argued earlier requests and closing argument preserved the issue	claim unpreserved: defendant had opportunity to object, received proposed instructions, and affirmatively accepted them; preservation requirements not met
whether an unpreserved constitutional claim is reviewable under Golding given the record	Golding review barred because defendant waived by accepting charge per Kitchens	asked for Golding review because claim is constitutional magnitude	Golding review denied: Kitchens controls and defendant implicitly waived by accepting proposed instructions after multiple reviews
application of Morales balancing test (materiality, cause, prejudice) to lost evidence	contends lost evidence had little/no materiality and loss was inadvertent	lost recordings were material to show police misconduct and defendant’s injuries	trial court applied Morales and found little evidentiary value and inadvertence; appellate court accepted trial court’s findings but primarily rested decision on waiver/unpreserved status

Key Cases Cited

State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (Conn. 1995) (adopted balancing test for due process review of lost evidence)
State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. 1984) (source of balancing factors applied to missing evidence)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (defendant waives claim when counsel affirmatively accepts jury instructions after meaningful review)
State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236 (Conn. 2008) (recognizes failure to preserve potentially useful evidence may implicate due process)
State v. Faria, 254 Conn. 613 (Conn. 2000) (Practice Book § 42-16 requires written request or exception to charge to preserve instructional claims)
State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238 (Conn. App. 2008) (discussion that pre-charge argument does not preserve instruction error)
State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353 (Conn. 2012) (closing argument alone insufficient to preserve instructional error)
State v. Dixon, 318 Conn. 495 (Conn. 2015) (restates Golding factors for constitutional claims on appeal)