State v. Matafeo, 13795

• Decision Date: 20 February 1990
• Docket Number: No. 13795,13795
• Citation: 787 P.2d 671,71 Haw. 183
• Parties: STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Taulagi MATAFEO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 671

787 P.2d 671

71 Haw. 183

STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Taulagi MATAFEO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13795.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Feb. 20, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

Where there is no showing that the State acted in bad faith in destroying evidence and none of the destroyed evidence was shown to be exculpatory or favorable to the defendant, no due process violation occurs. In certain circumstances, regardless of good or bad faith, the State may lose or destroy material evidence which is so critical as to render a trial fundamentally unfair without it, resulting in a due process violation.

Jonathan J. Ezer, Ezer & Sasaki (Alvin T. Sasaki with him on the brief), Honolulu, for defendant-appellant.

Kari C. Kristiansen-Ayau, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LUM, C.J., PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ., and Retired Justice Nakamura Assigned by Reason of Vacancy.

LUM, Chief Justice.

The issue raised in this interlocutory appeal by Defendant-Appellant Samuel Taulagi Matafeo (Appellant) from the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss the complaint is whether the inadvertent destruction of evidence by the police relating to his defense resulted in a denial of his right to due process under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Constitution of Hawaii.

Upon a careful review, we cannot conclude that a trial without the destroyed evidence would be fundamentally unfair to Appellant, and we accordingly affirm the trial court's order denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

I.

Appellant was charged with Sexual Assault in the First Degree, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-730(1)(a), and Kidnapping, HRS § 707-720(1)(d). Under Rule 16(b), Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP), Appellant requested inspection of all evidence gathered by the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) in its investigation. Counsel was told that due to a mistake in communication in the records department, HPD had destroyed all of the physical evidence relating to Appellant's case. In response, Appellant moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, to exclude evidence or testimony pertaining to the clothing and personal items of the complainant.

By stipulation, items of evidence recovered and destroyed by HPD were described as a pair of black shorts, a pair of white panties with the "crouch [crotch] ripped," and a yellow t-shirt. It was also stipulated that the officer who directed the destruction of the items had no personal knowledge of Appellant's case, and that he did not act intentionally in destroying the evidence.

At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Detective Leighton Fujinaka testified that he had personally gathered the items of clothing and had examined each item. Fujinaka observed that the panties had a "rip in the crotch area." On cross-examination, Fujinaka stated that the panties were "fairly large," and "appeared used, but were not old or tattered." He could not recall any details about the rip in the crotch.

The court denied the motion to dismiss, relying on the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), to hold that no violation of due process occurs where the government's failure to preserve evidence is not in bad faith. The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, stating, inter alia, that none of the destroyed evidence was exculpatory or helpful to the defendant's case, and that there had been no showing of bad faith by the police department in destroying the evidence.

II.

The due process guarantee of the Federal and Hawaii constitutions serves to protect the right of an accused in a criminal case to a fundamentally fair trial. State v. Keliiholokai, 58 Haw. 356, 569 P.2d 891 (1977). Central to the protections of due process is the right to be accorded "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532, 81 L.Ed.2d 413, 419 (1984); State v. Bullen, 63 Haw. 27, 620 P.2d 728 (1980). In this case, we are asked to determine whether "the opportunity to present a complete defense" is denied when no showing is made that the government acted in bad faith in destroying the clothing and none of the destroyed evidence was exculpatory or favorable to the defendant.

The Appellant first contends that the complainant's clothing was material evidence favorable to him, in that it would have corroborated his defense that the complainant consented to sexual intercourse. Consequently, he argues, its destruction deprived him of due process under the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and subsequent cases.

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d at 218. The Brady rule has been incorporated into the Hawaii due process jurisprudence and relied upon frequently by this court. See generally, State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204, 208, 738 P.2d 812 (1987); State v. Arnold, 66 Haw. 175, 657 P.2d 1052 (1983); State v. Marzo, 64 Haw. 395, 641 P.2d 1338 (1982).

We find no Brady violation here. There is no evidence on the record that the condition of the garments would corroborate the defendant's version of the events; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. Detective Fujinaka's testimony that a tear was found in the crotch of the complainant's panties accords with the complainant's preliminary hearing testimony that her assailant had "ripped the crouch [sic] out from" the panties. In light of the evidence and testimony on the condition of the clothing, the Appellant's argument that the garments were not significantly torn and misshapen amounts to speculation, and does not supply the necessary showing that the evidence would "creat[e] a reasonable doubt about the Appellant's guilt that would not otherwise exist." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2402, 49 L.Ed.2d 342, 355 (1976). See also State v. Kaiu, 5 Haw.App. 350, 692 P.2d 1166 (1984). Consequently, no Brady violation occurred.

The Appellant argues alternatively that the Brady rule should adhere where the inadvertent loss or destruction of evidence prevents its exculpatory value from being known. To adopt Appellant's argument would inevitably compel this court to engage in "the treacherous task of divining the import of materials whose contents are unknown and, very often, disputed." California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 486, 104 S.Ct. at 2533, 81 L.Ed.2d at 421.

Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, involved a state's negligent failure to preserve semen stains on the clothing of a sexual assault victim. The Supreme Court found no due process violation under the Brady standard, and refused to impose a constitutional duty beyond Brady in such cases. The Court observed that the exculpatory value of the evidence was not apparent before it was destroyed, and the state had complied with Brady and Agurs in all other respects by disclosing relevant police reports, laboratory reports and other evidence relating to the stains. 488 U.S. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 336, 102 L.Ed.2d at 288. Where the state destroys evidence that has only a potential exculpatory value, due process is not offended unless the defendant can demonstrate that the state acted in bad faith, the Court concluded. 488 U.S. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 337, 102 L.Ed.2d at 289. The Court expressed its reluctance to "impos[e] upon the police an undifferentiated and absolute duty to retain and to preserve all material that might be of conceivable evidentiary significance in a particular prosecution." 488 U.S. at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 337, 102 L.Ed.2d at 289.

We cannot agree that we need go no further than Arizona v. Youngblood to determine if Appellant has been denied due process. We believe the strict reading of the due process principles in Arizona v. Youngblood would preclude us, in cases where no bad faith is shown, from inquiring into the...