Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the loss or destruction of potentially useful evidence violates due process only when the defendant demonstrates bad faith by the state. The court concluded that the overwritten portion of the patrol-car videotape was potentially useful, rather than materially exculpatory, because it concerned the justification for the traffic stop rather than the impaired-driving charge itself. Because the recording was accidentally overwritten and there was no showing of bad faith, the court affirmed the court of appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State's failure to preserve the portion of a videotape showing the defendant's driving violated due process.
- Whether the destroyed videotape was materially exculpatory evidence under Brady or merely potentially useful evidence under Arizona v. Youngblood.
- Whether the defendant established bad faith by the State in the accidental destruction of the videotape.
Holdings
- The missing portion of the videotape was potentially useful evidence, not materially exculpatory evidence, because it would have been used only to challenge or corroborate the justification for the traffic stop and not to establish Geeslin's guilt or innocence of the impaired-driving charge itself.
- Unless a defendant can show that the State acted in bad faith, the State's failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not violate the defendant's due process rights.
Key quotations
“Unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” (254)
“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that unless a defendant can show that the state acted in bad faith, the state’s failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not violate a defendant’s due process rights.” (256)
Factual background
An Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper stopped Geeslin after observing his vehicle cross the roadway's white edge line several times and then detecting signs of alcohol impairment. The patrol car's video system recorded the stop, but the relevant portion showing Geeslin's driving was accidentally recorded over when the tape was inserted into another patrol car's recorder. The remaining portion showed events after the stop, including the field sobriety testing and arrest.
Procedural history
Geeslin was indicted on two felony counts of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and moved to dismiss, arguing that the State's destruction of part of a videotape deprived him of due process. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the destroyed evidence issue had to be resolved in the defendant's favor. The court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed that reversal.