What must defendants prove when claiming destroyed evidence violates due process? State v. Steele Explained

In State v. Steele, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the evidentiary standard defendants must meet when claiming that the State’s destruction of evidence violates their due process rights. The case provides important guidance for practitioners on the threshold showing required under State v. Tiedemann.

Background and Facts

Steele was charged with DUI and leaving the scene after an eyewitness observed her crash into a parked car and leave on foot. A police dog tracked Steele from the vehicle to her location, where an officer arrested her. Nearly two years later, defense counsel discovered that a 911 recording of the eyewitness’s call had been destroyed pursuant to the standard one-year retention policy. Steele moved to dismiss, arguing the recording might have contained an exculpatory description of the driver that differed from the eyewitness’s testimony at trial.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Steele satisfied the threshold requirement under Tiedemann of demonstrating a reasonable probability that the destroyed 911 recording would have contained exculpatory evidence. The court also examined what constitutes sufficient evidence versus impermissible speculation in such claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, holding that Steele failed to meet the threshold showing. The court distinguished State v. DeJesus, where the defendant presented witness testimony about what destroyed video evidence would have shown, from State v. Mohamud, where the defendant offered only speculation. Here, Steele provided no evidence that the eyewitness actually gave a description to dispatch, much less that it would have contradicted her trial testimony. The dispatch report contained no description beyond gender and the presence of a child, and no witness testified about the call’s contents.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that defendants cannot rely on speculation about destroyed evidence but must present some evidence of what it would have contained. Practitioners should gather witness testimony, conduct evidentiary hearings, or present other evidence demonstrating how the lost evidence would have been exculpatory. The court noted that Steele could have called the eyewitness or other witnesses to testify about the 911 call’s contents, or even testified herself without waiving Fifth Amendment protections.