City of Seattle v. Fettig, 2203--I
| Decision Date | 18 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2203--I,2203--I |
| Citation | 10 Wn.App. 773,519 P.2d 1002 |
| Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent, v. Eugene FETTIG, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
David R. Collins, Seattle, for appellant.
John P. Harris, Corp. Counsel, Myron L. Cornelius, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Seattle, for respondent.
Eugene Fettig was convicted of driving while intoxicated. He appeals.
On October 25, 1972, at approximately 2 a.m., Fettig was arrested and charged by Seattle police with negligent driving and driving while intoxicated. Immediately upon arrest, he was transported to the police station where he was given a breathalyzer test (reading .12) and performed physical tests, which were recorded on video tape. On November 14, 1972, Fettig was tried in Seattle Municipal Court. The video tape of the physical tests was a part of the city's case, along with police testimony and the breathalyzer results. Fettig was found not guilty of negligent driving and guilty of driving while intoxicated. He appealed his conviction to the Superior Court where, on March 5, 1973, the case was tried de novo before a jury. At the beginning of the trial, Fettig moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the police had negligently destroyed the video tape of his physical tests, thereby denying due process of law. In the alternative, he requested that the jury be given an instruction that it could infer that the video tape, had it been available, would have corroborated his testimony that he was not under the influence of alcohol and rebutted the testimony of the police officers. The motion to dismiss was denied and the requested instruction was refused.
Fettig thereafter offered testimony of the municipal court judge who first heard the matter in an effort to demonstrate that the video tape was material and exculpatory. As a condition of admitting that testimony, the trial court required that the municipal court judge be permitted to testify to having found Fettig guilty. Rather than accept the condition, Fettig withdrew his offer of proof except insofar as it supported his pretrial motion to dismiss. The jury found Fettig guilty of driving while intoxicated; he was fined and given a suspended jail sentence.
The appeal questions whether the trial court erred in (1) failing to dismiss on the ground that the destruction of the video tape was a suppression of material and exculpatory evidence in violation of due process; (2) refusing to instruct the jury that it could infer that the video tape would have negated evidence of the defendant's intoxication, and (3) ruling that the testimony of the municipal court judge in the trial de novo must be permitted to include his finding of guilt as well as his belief in the exculpatory nature of the tape.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) recognized the right that is here asserted. The principle was restated in State v. Temple, 5 Wash.App. 1, 8, 485 P.2d 93, 98 (1971):
A suppression by the prosecution of material evidence favorable to a criminal defendant violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment irrespective of the good faith of the prosecution.
In the present case the video tape was negligently destroyed and thereby suppressed. Although the police destroyed the video tape, their acts are chargeable to the prosecutor; the suppression therefore was 'by the prosecution.' Barbee v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964); Imbler v. Craven, 298 F.Supp. 795, 806 (C.D.Cal.1969); Evans v. Kropp, 254 F.Supp. 218, 222 (E.D.Mich.1966). Moreover, that the suppression was negligent rather than deliberate is not material here; the defendant's due process rights are affected in either case. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Thomas v. United States, 343 F.2d 49 (9th Cir.1965); Hanson v. Cupp, 5 Or.App. 312, 484 P.2d 847 (1971).
The crucial question, then, is whether the video tape was 'material evidence favorable to a criminal defendant.'
The police officer witnesses were permitted to testify as to their observations regarding Fettig's performance on the physical tests. The video tape was a record of that performance, either substantiating or rebutting the officers' testimony. It was therefore material to Fettig's case since the testimony of the officers was the only evidence admitted against him, except the rebuttable presumption of intoxication evidenced by the .12 breathalyzer reading. See Trimble v. State, 75 N.M. 183, 402 P.2d 162 (1965).
The municipal court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tobias v. State
...v. Giles, 239 Md. 458, 245 Md. 342; Ross v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 1 Md.App. 46, 227 A.2d 42 (1967); City of Seattle v. Fettig, 10 Wash.App. 773, 519 P.2d 1002 (1974). Additionally, we may accept appellant's contention that the evidence in question was of a favorable character to th......
-
State of Wash. v. MANKIN, 38977-1-II.
...that will impede effective impeachment and is, therefore, a due process violation. He cites City of Seattle v. Fettig, 10 Wash.App. 773, 519 P.2d 1002 (1974). Fettig is not on point; it involved a Brady 11 violation based on the destruction of an existing video tape of physical tests that o......
-
People v. Amison
...Younie v. State, 19 Md.App. 439, 311 A.2d 798 (1973), Revd. on other grounds, 272 Md. 233, 322 A.2d 211 (1974), City of Seattle v. Fettig, 10 Wash.App. 773, 519 P.2d 1002 (1974), Trimble v. State, 75 N.M. 183, 402 P.2d 162 (1965), United States v. Bryant, This Court has uniformly held that,......
-
State v. Coe
...he did not know of the hypnotic sessions is unacceptable. See State v. Vaster, 99 Wash.2d 44, 659 P.2d 528 (1983); Seattle v. Fettig, 10 Wash.App. 773, 519 P.2d 1002 (1974). Coe was entitled to be informed by the State that the witnesses had been hypnotized and to receive the tapes of those......
-
Pre-trial discovery
...favorable to the defendant” and show that its alteration, loss, or destruction merits an acquittal. See City of Seattle v. Fettig , 10 Wn. App. 773, 519 P.2d 1002 (1974); Thorne v. Dept. of Public Safety , 774 P.2d 1326 (Alaska 1989). Moreover, if the audio portion of the video recording wa......
-
Trial practice
...of Public Safety , 774 P.2d 1326 (Alaska 1989); Commonwealth v. Cameron , 520 N.E.2d 1326 (Mass. App. 1988); City of Seattle v. Fettig, 519 P.2d 1002 (Wash. App. 1974). 6-181 Trial Practice §641 TRIAL PRACTICE In this regard, courts will often focus on whether the lost or missing videotape ......