STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JEREL MORRISON ERWIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the suppression of blood evidence was improper because there is no duty to collect multiple vials and the defendant failed to show bad faith by the state in the destruction of evidence.
[1] The state is not required to collect two vials of blood for analysis in a DUI case, and due process is not violated if the state's analysis consumes the entire contents o…
[2] A criminal defendant must demonstrate bad faith on the part of the state in destroying potentially exculpatory evidence before a due process violation will be deemed to h…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlood evidence was collected from the appellee after a fatal vehicular crash. The state's analysis consumed one vial, and the second vial was broken a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Process Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order suppressing blood evidence in a DUI manslaughter case. We reverse.
Two vials of blood were withdrawn from appellee just after the vehicular crash which killed the victim. Those vials were submitted to a laboratory for analysis of blood-alcohol content. The analyst determined the blood-alcohol level to be .21 milligrams per deciliter. The analyst used all of the contents of a vial to perform his test. The second vial was broken at some time during the period in which it was in the possession of the laboratory.
Because the second vial was broken and contaminated it was rendered useless for appellee’s expert’s examination, so appellee sought and obtained suppression of the results of the examination of the first vial.
Two factors lead us to reverse the order of suppression.
The first is that there is no duty upon the state or its agents to collect two vials for analysis and there is no due process violation if the state’s analysis necessarily consumes the entire contents of the vial. Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1985).
The second is that even if there was a possibility that the second vial contained exculpatory evidence, the appellee was required to show bad faith upon the part of the state in destroying the evidence. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) (in cases where the State fails to preserve evidentiary which is potentially exculpatory, the criminal defendant must demonstrate bad faith on the part of police before the fundamental fairness requirement of the Due Process Clause is deemed violated); Merck v. State, 664 So. 2d 939 (Fla.1995) (a criminal defendant must show that the police acted in bad faith in failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence to prove a due process violation); State v. Durkee, 584 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA), dismissed, 592 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1991); Louissaint v. State, 576 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The trial judge specifically found no bad faith and a lack of wilfulness.
REVERSED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bennett v. State, 23 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…evidence was material exculpatory evidence. See, e.g., State v. Muro, 909 So. 2d 448, 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding that the defendant failed to establish that the destroyed evidence was exculpatory more than potentially useful); State v. Erwin, 686 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reversing motion to suppress because the defendant “was required to show bad faith upon the part of the state in destroying the evidence”). Nevertheless, the burden of proof established in Sobel has never been withdrawn by…
-
Gutierrez v. State, 733 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Erwin, 686 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). DAUKSCH, COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
-
Michel Exantus v. State, 734 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…tion justifying dismissal of the case would arise only if there is a finding of bad faith in failing to preserve evidence. See Merck v. State, 664 So. 2d 939, 942 (Fla.1995); State v. Daniels, 699 So. 2d 837, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Erwin, 686 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Here, there was no showing whatsoever of any bad faith on the part of the state or the police. Affirmed. WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988)
- Ramsey v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)
- Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)
- Merck v. State, 664 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1995)
- Louissaint v. State, 576 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- State v. Durkee, 584 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)