State v. Schmidt

Summary

Steven Schmidt appealed his theft-of-property conviction, arguing that the State violated due process by failing to preserve surveillance video and that the district court improperly admitted testimony about a still photograph and denied an adverse-inference jury instruction. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the State had failed to collect the video in the first instance, the private store owner was not a State agent, and the video-related testimony was not hearsay or a confrontation-clause violation. The court affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. The State did not violate Schmidt's due process rights because the police never collected the surveillance video from the private store owner; Brady applies to suppression of evidence collected and preserved by the State, and the State generally has no duty to collect evidence for the defense.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schmidt's pretrial motion because the store owner's testimony described his personal observations of the video, was not an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and Schmidt had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine him at trial.
3. The district court properly refused the proposed adverse-inference instruction because the State never possessed or destroyed the video, and the instruction would have misleadingly implied that the State or its agent caused the evidence to be lost.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State violated Schmidt's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland by failing to collect and preserve the Dakota Express surveillance video.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Schmidt's motion to limit testimony about the still photograph and exclude testimony concerning the surveillance video, including whether the testimony was hearsay or violated the Confrontation Clause.
3. Whether the district court erred by refusing Schmidt's proposed jury instruction permitting an adverse inference against the State based on the loss or destruction of evidence.

Disposition

affirmed