State v. Mohamud: Lost Evidence Violating Due Process

Defendant claiming the loss or destruction of evidence violates due process must make a threshold showing that there was reasonable probability that evidence would have been exculpatory. State v. Mohamud, 2017 UT 23.

The defendant, who was incarcerated at the Utah State Prison, was found in possession of a shank. One correctional officer testified that he saw the shank being removed by another officer, while a different correctional officer saw the searching officer reach down by the defendant’s ankle where the shank was found. Video footage, if it existed and captured the search, was subsequently taped over inadvertently by the prison. The defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that there was surveillance footage that captured the incident, that it had been lost or destroyed by the State, that there was a reasonable probability the evidence would have been exculpatory because it could have impeached the State's witnesses' credibility, and that he was prejudiced by the loss of the evidence. The Court held that under the Tiedemann due process analysis, a defendant must make a threshold showing that there is a reasonable probability the lost or destroyed evidence would have been exculpatory.The Court continued “[o]nce the reasonable probability threshold has been satisfied, the second part of the Tiedemann analysis sets forth two factors that courts must balance both to determine the seriousness of the due process violation and to fashion the appropriate remedy: (1) the culpability of the State in the loss or destruction of the evidence and (2) the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the missing evidence.” Here, the defendant failed to meet the reasonable probability threshold because he proffered only speculation as to what the footage might have shown.