Terrence Melvin Koonce v. District of Columbia
111 A.3d 1009
| D.C. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 2, 2012, Koonce was involved in a multi-vehicle crash, was observed by officers and a citizen to appear intoxicated, and was arrested for DUI.
- Police found two open bottles in Koonce’s SUV (a vodka bottle and cranberry juice); the officers photographed the vodka bottle (seal broken, ~90% full) but discarded the physical bottle and did not preserve it as evidence.
- Station-house security cameras recorded continuously, but the footage from the arrest was recorded over under MPD practice before trial; defense requested preservation of station video 34 days after arrest.
- Defense argued the destroyed video and discarded bottle were discoverable evidence under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16 and MPD General Orders and sought sanctions (dismissal or negative inference; suppression of photos); trial court found a discovery violation but no bad faith and declined the requested severe sanctions.
- Jury heard officer testimony, a 911 audio with Koonce’s voice, and evidence of Koonce’s claimed refusal to submit chemical tests; Koonce was convicted of DUI and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did government violate discovery duty by failing to preserve station video? | Koonce: station video was material under Rule 16 and MPD policy; government had duty to preserve and disclose; destruction prejudiced defense. | Gov’t: routine 30-day overwrite practice, no duty to indefinitely preserve; defense could have requested sooner. | Court: Failure to preserve was a discovery violation; no bad faith shown; government procedures deficient but dismissal not required. |
| Was dismissal or adverse inference required for destroyed video? | Koonce: severe sanction (dismissal or jury instruction inferring exculpatory content) warranted because video was material. | Gov’t: destruction was not willful; other evidence was available; less severe remedy appropriate. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; informative jury instruction about the missing tape (no mandatory adverse inference) was sufficient. |
| Did failure to preserve actual vodka bottle require suppression of photographs? | Koonce: photo evidence substituted for destroyed bottle; suppression of photos or other sanction required. | Gov’t: photos admissible; bottle discard not in bad faith and evidence was corroborative and not central. | Court: No abuse of discretion in admitting photos or denying suppression given lack of bad faith and cumulative nature of bottle evidence. |
| Was giving DUI-refusal jury instruction improper because Koonce did not knowingly refuse? | Koonce: he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently refuse (was asleep/unconscious). | Gov’t: testimony showed Koonce initially refused and later was unresponsive due to voluntary intoxication; instruction appropriate. | Court: Instruction was supported by evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion in giving it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. United States, 77 A.3d 425 (D.C. 2013) (government has general duty to preserve discoverable evidence under Rule 16)
- Bean v. United States, 17 A.3d 635 (D.C. 2011) (failure to preserve physical evidence not necessarily a due process violation absent bad faith)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due-process sanction requires bad faith for loss of potentially useful evidence)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (due-process duty to preserve arises when evidence has apparent exculpatory value)
- Tyer v. United States, 912 A.2d 1150 (D.C. 2006) (materiality standard under Rule 16 is low; trial court has discretion assessing negligence/bad faith)
- Day v. United States, 697 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1997) (factors for sanction: degree of negligence/bad faith, importance of lost evidence, strength of government’s case)
- Cotton v. United States, 388 A.2d 865 (D.C. 1978) (sanctioning framework for discovery violations)
- Gethers v. United States, 684 A.2d 1266 (D.C. 1996) (broad range of available sanctions; review for abuse of discretion)
- Myers v. United States, 15 A.3d 688 (D.C. 2011) (government duty to preserve vital evidence before prosecution begins)
- Robinson v. United States, 825 A.2d 318 (D.C. 2003) (custody/control extends to MPD evidence; government bears heavy burden to explain non-preservation)