State v. Zephier, 949 N.W.2d 560

Early morning stop of a maroon two-door linked to a shots-fired call; defendant Trevor Zephier was detained while Daniel Cranmer (occupant) fled, crashed the car, and was later arrested.
Officers found 16 firearms in the vehicle (back seat and trunk); deputies photographed and inventoried them and transported them to the sheriff’s office.
Deputies, after consulting the local prosecutor, returned all but one firearm the same day to the owner, Joe Soulek, without notifying Zephier as required by SDCL 23A-37-15.
Cranmer confessed and implicated Zephier in stealing the guns; Zephier denied knowledge and moved to suppress the guns and for fingerprint testing based on the premature return.
The circuit court denied suppression and denied appointment of a fingerprint expert (finding testing likely compromised); the jury convicted Zephier of first-degree burglary and grand theft.
On appeal the court affirmed, applying Trombetta/Youngblood materiality and bad-faith standards and finding no due process violation or abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether returned guns must be suppressed for violating evidence-preservation statute and due process	State: Statutory noncompliance acknowledged but no Brady-type suppression; lost fingerprint opportunity was not materially exculpatory and there is no bad faith by police or prosecutor	Zephier: Return deprived him of access to potentially exculpatory fingerprint evidence and violated SDCL 23A-37-15, warranting suppression or new trial	Affirmed: No due process violation — guns lacked apparent exculpatory value (Trombetta); at best evidence was "potentially useful" and no bad faith (Youngblood); jury instruction/ cross-examination cured prejudice
Whether denial of expert fingerprint testing was an abuse of discretion	State: Testing would likely be inconclusive because guns were handled and returned; analysis unnecessary	Zephier: Needed expert testing to show absence of his prints and to support defense	Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion — request lacked factual support, testing likely compromised, and any error was not prejudicial

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose identifiable, material exculpatory evidence)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (lost/destroyed evidence materiality test: evidence must have apparent exculpatory value before destruction and be irreplaceable)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (where evidence is merely potentially useful, defendant must show police bad faith)
State v. Lyerla, 424 N.W.2d 908 (S.D. 1988) (discusses Trombetta framework for lost evidence claims)
State v. Danielson, 814 N.W.2d 401 (S.D. 2012) (applies Trombetta/Youngblood to deny relief absent bad faith)
State v. Bousum, 663 N.W.2d 257 (S.D. 2003) (uses Trombetta materiality and Youngblood bad-faith analysis for lost evidence claims)