Earl McVay v. State

No. 01-19-00480-CR · Court of Appeals of Texas, First District · December 17, 2020 · No. 01-19-00480-CR

Summary

The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Earl McVay’s conviction for assault causing bodily injury to a family member. The court held that the trial court properly denied McVay’s motion to dismiss based on the loss of a videotaped police interview because he failed to show that the potentially useful evidence was destroyed in bad faith. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the jury a spoliation instruction.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas, First District
Writing for the Court
Russell Lloyd; Justice Keyes; Justice Lloyd; Justice Landau
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
December 17, 2020
Docket number
01-19-00480-CR
Procedural posture
Appeal from a jury conviction for assault causing bodily injury to a family member. The appellant challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss based on spoliation of potentially useful evidence and the denial of a requested jury instruction on spoliation.
Standard of review
For a motion to dismiss, the court applies a bifurcated standard: it gives almost total deference to supported findings of fact and to mixed questions of law and fact dependent on credibility, while reviewing pure legal questions and mixed questions not dependent on credibility de novo. The denial of a requested spoliation instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Unobjected-to jury-charge error requires reversal only upon a showing of egregious harm.
Precedential value
Unpublished, nonprecedential memorandum opinion; designated do not publish under Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Parties
Earl McVay v. The State of Texas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

suppression of evidencecriminal procedureevidenceappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureEvidenceAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred by denying McVay's motion to dismiss based on the State's failure to preserve a videotape of Hubbard's police interview.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on spoliation.

Holdings

  1. The failure to preserve the videotape did not violate due process because McVay failed to establish that the evidence was destroyed in bad faith. The trial court therefore did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a spoliation instruction because McVay failed to establish that the videotape was destroyed in bad faith or that it was potentially exculpatory or useful.

Key quotations

“Bad faith” is more than being aware that one’s action or inaction could result in the loss of evidence. (10)
“[B]ad faith entails some sort of improper motive, such as personal animus against the defendant or a desire to prevent the defendant from obtaining evidence that might be useful.” (10)
A showing of negligence does not qualify as bad faith. (10)
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on spoliation. (16)

Factual background

Police interviewed and obtained a written statement from Johnnie Hubbard after she reported that McVay had assaulted her. The interview room continuously recorded audio and video, but the recording was not downloaded or preserved and was automatically purged after approximately fourteen to fifteen days unless detectives requested preservation. The record showed that Hubbard's written statement and photographs of her injuries were available, and there was no evidence that the investigating officer or police department acted with animus toward McVay or intended to prevent him from obtaining useful evidence.

Procedural history

McVay was charged with assault causing bodily injury to a family member and pleaded not guilty. Before trial, he moved to dismiss because a videotape of the complainant's police interview was missing; the trial court denied the motion after a pretrial hearing. A jury found him guilty, and after an agreement on punishment the trial court sentenced him to 365 days in county jail, fully probated, and assessed a $500 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…