State v. Jackson

Decision Date23 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 23264,23264
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Stephen Pierce JACKSON, Appellant. . Heard
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

John R. Clarke and William Isaac Diggs, North Myrtle Beach, for appellant.

Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. James O. Dunn, Conway, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice.

The sole issue in this case is whether Jackson's due process rights were violated when he was prosecuted for driving under the influence (DUI) after the charges had been dismissed and the videotape had been destroyed. We find that they were and therefore reverse.

FACTS

On September 17, 1988, Stephen Pierce Jackson was arrested for DUI. He was taken to the police department where he was videotaped while performing field sobriety tests. He was also given a breathalyzer test.

Thereafter, the Assistant Solicitor conducted a pretrial conference with Jackson's attorney. After viewing the tape, the Assistant Solicitor dismissed the case. He notified the person in charge of the tapes at the police department in October or November 1988 of the dismissal of the charges. In January 1989, Jackson was notified that the charges would be prosecuted. The videotape was erased in March 1989. In addition, the Solicitor's office lost the original breathalyzer report.

The trial judge ordered that the trial proceed in spite of the missing evidence. Jackson was convicted of DUI, second offense. He was sentenced to one year, suspended upon the performance of ten days public service followed by two years probation. He was also fined $250 and ordered to pay $50 for the breathalyzer test.

DISCUSSION

Jackson contends that it was a violation of his due process rights to prosecute him after the charges were dismissed and evidence was destroyed. His argument is based upon the principle that defendants are to be given a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. To protect this right, the United States Supreme Court has developed "what might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3446, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193, 1203 (1982).

In this regard, defendants have the right to request and obtain from the prosecution evidence that is material to the guilt of the defendant or relevant to the punishment to be imposed. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Even absent a request, prosecutors have a constitutional duty to give the defendant exculpatory evidence which would raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976).

In California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the State's failure to retain breath samples for the defendants in a DUI case was not a due process violation. The Court reasoned that the officers were acting in good faith and in accord with their normal practice when the breath samples were discarded. After the intoxilyzer was administered and results were obtained, the officers normally disposed of the samples. The Court also found that the defendant failed to prove that the evidence was "material," which means that the "evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means."

In Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), the Court held that the defendant must prove bad faith on the part of the police in order for the destruction of potentially useful evidence to constitute a denial of due process. Specifically, the police must know of the exculpatory value of the evidence before it is destroyed. "The presence or absence of bad faith by the police for purposes of Due Process Clause must necessarily turn on the police's knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed." 109 S.Ct. at 337, nt.

We think that requiring a defendant to show bad faith on the part of the police both limits the extent of the police's obligation to preserve evidence to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Cheeseboro
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 27, 2001
    ...Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988); State v. Mabe, 306 S.C. 355, 412 S.E.2d 386 (1991); State v. Jackson, 302 S.C. 313, 396 S.E.2d 101 (1990). To establish a due process violation, a defendant must demonstrate (1) that the State destroyed the evidence in bad fait......
  • Ex Parte Lawrence James Napper, Applicant
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 29, 2010
    ...of potentially exculpatory value was not merely conclusory but was backed up by objective, independent evidence.). 127. State v. Jackson, 302 S.C. 313, 316, 396 S.E.2d 101, 102 (1990). 128. State v. McGrone, 798 So. 2d 519, 523 (Miss. 2001) (defense counsel subpoenaed police officers for tw......
  • City of Columbia v. Assaad-Faltas
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 1, 2005
    ...the evidence was destroyed and the defendant cannot obtain other evidence of comparable value by other means. State v. Mabe, supra; State v. Jackson, supra. In Cheeseboro and Mabe, evidence was destroyed without bad faith and the appellant in each case was unable to prove the evidence had e......
  • Sobers v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 13, 2022
    ...... before the Honorable J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge. App. 1 et. seq . The State was represented by. Solicitors Barry Joe Barnette, Esq. and Harold W. Gowdy, III,. Esq., and N. Douglas Brannon, Esq., Brac Hylton ... any deficiency. Applicant claims Counsel was ineffective. because he failed to utilize Applicant's testimony at the. Jackson v. Denno hearing. At the Jackson v. Denno hearing, Investigators Bryant and Williams. testified that Applicant was advised of his ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Pre-trial preparation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Defending Drinking Drivers - Volume One
    • March 31, 2022
    ...to establish bad faith on the part of the prosecution if potentially exculpatory evidence is destroyed. But see State v. Jackson , 396 S.E.2d 101 (S.C. 1990) (destroyed videotape was material and exculpatory evidence). However, even if the prosecution has not lost or destroyed the tape in b......
  • Trial practice
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Defending Drinking Drivers - Volume One
    • March 31, 2022
    ...even if the destruction of the tape could be explained to the jury, the value of the tape could not be replaced. See State v. Jackson, 396 S.E.2d 101 (S.C. 1990). In Jackson, in reviewing the Brady-Trumbetta-Youngblood series of cases, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction, where th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT