Utah Supreme Court
What must defendants prove when the state loses potentially exculpatory evidence? State v. DeJesus Explained
Summary
Lissette DeJesus was charged with assaulting a prison guard after surveillance footage of the incident was lost through State negligence. She moved to dismiss under State v. Tiedemann, arguing the lost video would have been exculpatory by showing she intended to strike another inmate, not the officer.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. DeJesus provides crucial guidance for criminal practitioners on the standards governing lost evidence claims under the state constitution’s due process clause.
Background and Facts
DeJesus was charged with assaulting a corrections officer during a prison altercation. Surveillance footage captured the incident, but the State failed to preserve it despite knowing of its potential relevance. DeJesus moved to dismiss under State v. Tiedemann, arguing the lost video would have shown she intended to strike another inmate rather than the officer, negating the required intent element for assault.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two issues: first, whether Tiedemann requires defendants to demonstrate a reasonable probability that lost evidence would be exculpatory as a threshold requirement; and second, how courts should apply the Tiedemann factors when evaluating remedies for due process violations caused by lost evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court reaffirmed that Tiedemann establishes a two-step analysis. First, defendants must show a reasonable probability the lost evidence would be exculpatory—described as “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” but less than “more probable than not.” The district court erred by requiring defendants to prove what the evidence actually showed rather than applying this lower threshold. Second, courts must balance the State’s culpability in losing evidence against prejudice to the defendant. Here, while the State’s negligence was not gross, the loss of surveillance footage in a credibility contest between an officer and inmates created severe prejudice warranting dismissal.
Practice Implications
Practitioners should focus on the reasonable probability standard’s low threshold when arguing lost evidence motions. Defendants need not prove the evidence was actually exculpatory—speculation that is “not wholly incredible” suffices. The decision also emphasizes that remedies beyond dismissal may be appropriate, including jury instructions or witness limitations, depending on the specific circumstances and degree of prejudice.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. DeJesus
Citation
2017 UT 22
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20150460
Date Decided
April 21, 2017
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Under the Utah Constitution’s due process clause, when the State loses or destroys evidence with a reasonable probability of being exculpatory, courts must balance the State’s culpability and prejudice to the defendant to determine appropriate remedies, and dismissal may be warranted where negligent loss of crucial surveillance footage forces defendant to rely on less credible witnesses against State’s officer testimony.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding due process requirements; clearly erroneous for subsidiary factual determinations
Practice Tip
When moving to dismiss for lost evidence under Tiedemann, focus on establishing a reasonable probability the evidence would be helpful rather than proving what it would have definitively shown.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.