State v. St. Louis, 2008 ME 101

951 A.2d 80 (Me. 2008) · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · June 24, 2008

Summary

Heath St. Louis appealed his convictions for two counts of manslaughter arising from a fatal motor-vehicle accident. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the destruction of the accident vehicle did not violate due process or fair-trial rights because the vehicle’s exculpatory value was not apparent before its destruction and the State did not act in bad faith, and it affirmed the judgment.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Writing for the Court
Gorman, J.; Saufley, C.J.; Clifford, J.; Alexander, J.; Levy, J.
Jurisdiction
Maine
Decision date
June 24, 2008
Procedural posture
Heath St. Louis appealed his judgment of conviction for two counts of manslaughter following a jury trial in the Superior Court.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine; precedential.
Parties
Heath St. Louis v. State of Maine
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduredue processsixth amendmentevidencesuppression of evidence

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether prosecutorial delay and the State's failure to preserve the accident vehicle violated St. Louis's due process rights or denied him governmental fair play.
  2. Whether destruction of the accident vehicle violated St. Louis's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
  3. Whether the trial court's restrictions concerning the vehicle and refusal to give a spoliation instruction denied St. Louis a fair trial.

Holdings

  1. The State's failure to prevent destruction of the accident vehicle did not violate St. Louis's due process right to a fair trial because he failed to show that the vehicle contained evidence whose exculpatory value was apparent before destruction, that comparable evidence was unavailable, and that the State acted in bad faith.
  2. St. Louis's confrontation and fair-trial arguments concerning the unavailable accident vehicle did not warrant reversal, and the conviction was affirmed.

Key quotations

We therefore affirm the court's judgment despite the State's serious oversight in allowing the destruction of the accident vehicle. (¶ 7)
destruction of evidence violates a defendant's due process rights when the evidence possesses exculpatory value apparent before its destruction and the defendant is unable to obtain comparable evidence (¶ 7)

Factual background

On October 20, 2004, Heath St. Louis and two passengers were involved in a one-car accident; both passengers died, and St. Louis survived. Blood-alcohol testing showed alcohol in all three individuals, and forensic testing connected St. Louis's DNA and blood to the driver's area and airbag. After the Maine State Police crime laboratory completed its testing, the vehicle was released to the insurer and destroyed before St. Louis was indicted. At trial, St. Louis could refer to the vehicle's unavailability but could not characterize it as destroyed, and the court declined to give a requested spoliation instruction.

Procedural history

After a one-car accident killed two passengers, St. Louis was indicted on two manslaughter counts. Before trial, he moved to suppress forensic evidence and dismiss the charges based on prosecutorial delay, destruction of the accident vehicle, and governmental fair play; the Superior Court denied the motions. The jury convicted him, the court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the court imposed sentence. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…