JEFFREY FELDER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant Felder was convicted of burglary of a conveyance after being found in a fenced area carrying tools from a maintenance van. He challenged the conviction arguing the state failed to preserve evidence (his bicycle and the tools/toolboxes) that would have supported his defense, but the court affirmed, finding no due process violation absent bad faith where the evidence was only potentially useful.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The bicycle was not a problem because the state stipulated it had a flat tire. As for the tools and toolboxes, they were only potentially useful evidence, and without showing bad faith by police, dismissal is not warranted. The evidence was not material because appellant's flat tire claim undermined any argument about transporting items on the bicycle.
[1] Dismissal of a charge is the most severe sanction for the destruction of evidence and should be used with great caution.
[2] Suppression of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process if the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, regardless of prosecutorial good faith.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The loss or destruction of evidence that is only potentially useful to the defense violates due process only if the defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police or prosecution.”
Establishes the legal standard for lost evidence claims absent bad faith, requiring materiality rather than mere potential usefulness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was discovered in a fenced area walking out of a maintenance van carrying tools and toolboxes. He claimed his bicycle at the scene had a fla…
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 Arizona V. Youngblood cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a conveyance and raises the issue of whether the court should have dismissed the information because the state failed to preserve evidence favorable to him. We affirm.
Appellant was discovered in a fenced area, walking out of a maintenance van carrying tools and tool boxes. Appellant’s explanation was that his bicycle, which was at the scene, had a flat tire, and he was looking for something to inflate it.
After arresting appellant, the police took his bicycle as evidence to the station. Neither the tools nor the tool boxes were preserved as evidence or photographed. The bicycle, after being placed in the evidence room, could not be found.
Appellant moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the officers lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve evidence, arguing he was denied due process. He asserted that the bicycle had a flat tire, which would have corroborated his explanation that he was merely seeking something to inflate it. He also argued that the tool boxes he was accused of taking were too large and heavy for him to have transported on his bicycle, and the officers should have retained or photographed them.
The loss of the bicycle was not a problem for the appellant because the state, in order to cure the problem created by its inability to locate it, stipulated that it had a flat tire. The issue, accordingly, is limited to whether the court erred in denying dismissal because the state failed to preserve the tools or. the tool boxes. The officer who arrested defendant testified that the tools were large, but the defendant did not cross-examine him as to their size or weight.
There is no evidence that the loss or failure to preserve evidence in this case was due to bad faith on the part of the police. In order for there to be a denial of due process, where there is no bad faith, the lost evidence must be more than merely potentially useful to the defense. As the court explained in State v. Thomas, 826 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002):
The dismissal of a charge is the most severe sanction a court can impose for the destruction of evidence; it is to be used with the greatest caution and deliberation. State v. Westerman, 688 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). But the loss or destruction of evidence that is only potentially useful to the defense violates due process only if the .defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police or prosecution. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988); King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237, 1242 (Fla.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 962, 122 S.Ct. 2670, 153 L.Ed.2d 843 (2002).
At best, the tools and tool boxes would only have been potentially useful. Appellant’s argument that it would have been obvious that they were too heavy for him to take away on his bicycle is undermined by the fact that appellant .did not attempt to establish, through cross-examination of the officer, the size or weight of the items. The materiality of the tools and tool boxes is also highly questionable because of appellant’s insistence that his bicycle had a flat tire, making it of little use for transporting anything. The trial court did not accordingly err in denying the motion to dismiss. Affirmed.
WARNER ánd GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lamm, 945 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ssertion that the original videotape is still available in full, albeit not in usable format, without conversion. We have recognized that dismissal of an information should be used only with the “greatest caution and deliberation.” Felder v. State, 873 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. [*649] 4th DCA 2004) (citation omitted). The dismissal of an information is an extreme sanction and, therefore, “should be used with caution, and only when a lesser sanction would not achieve the desired result.” State v. Carpenter, 899…
-
State v. Muro, 909 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…91 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). If the State shows the evidence would have been only potentially useful for the defense, the defendant must show bad faith on the part of the State in order for there to be a due process violation. Felder v. State, 873 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In the case at bar, no evidence has been presented to this Court that the State acted in bad faith in the destruction of the tape. Therefore, the defense must show the evidence would be more than potentially useful. The defense…1 / 2
-
State v. Elkins Gomez, 915 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…that such photographs, assuming they existed, would have been potentially useful to the defense, they do not constitute material exculpatory evidence as a matter of law. See State v. Muro, 909 So. 2d 448, 455-56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Felder v. State, 873 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We also find that the defendant did not meet his burden of showing that he would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. See Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 490, 104 S.Ct. 2528. There is no rec…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988)
- Amos Lee King v. State, 808 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2002)
- Remy Pierre v. State, 826 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- State v. Westerman, 688 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Watts v. United States, 536 U.S. 962 (U.S. 2002)
- Graves v. United States, 536 U.S. 962 (U.S. 2002)