The opinion
07/22/2024
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs January 10, 2024
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD CALDWELL
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County
No. F-85154 Howard W. Wilson, Chancellor
___________________________________
No. M2023-00343-CCA-R3-CD
___________________________________
Following a trial, a jury found Defendant, Richard Caldwell, guilty of felony evading
arrest, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked or suspended license, for which
Defendant received an effective two-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant contends that
the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction regarding the State’s duty
to preserve evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Affirmed
ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which TIMOTHY L.
EASTER and JILL BARTEE AYERS, JJ., joined.
Jessica F. Butler (on appeal), Assistant Public Defender—Appellate Division; Gerald
Melton, District Public Defender; and Billie I. Zimmermann and Katie Ladefoged (at trial),
Assistant District Public Defenders, for the appellant, Richard Caldwell.
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Brooke A. Huppenthal, Assistant
Attorney General; Jennings H. Jones, District Attorney General; and Sarah N. Davis and
Jerry Blythe, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In April 2021, the Rutherford County Grand Jury issued an indictment charging
Defendant with the following offenses:
Count Offense Classification
1 Evading Arrest Class D felony
2 Reckless Driving Class B misdemeanor
3 Resisting Arrest Class B misdemeanor
4 Driving on a Revoked/Suspended License Class B misdemeanor
The case proceeded to trial in May 2022. At the start of proof, the State announced
the parties stipulated that, on January l, 2021, Defendant’s driver’s license “was suspended
or revoked, and he was not allowed to drive on the roadways of Tennessee.”
Deputy Clarence Christopher Hyder of the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office
(WCSO) testified that, around 9:00 a.m. on January 1, 2021, he was on routine patrol
traveling northbound on Columbia Pike in Williamson County when he observed
Defendant, who was driving a silver Chevy Tahoe southbound on Columbia Pike, “swerve
into the left turning lane -- halfway in, swerve out, swerve back in, and just stop.” Deputy
Hyder made a U-turn at the light and then observed Defendant stopped at a red light,
waiting to turn onto the ramp to Interstate 840. Deputy Hyder noted, however, that
Defendant stopped about 100 yards short of the light and was between the turning lane and
the lane beside it.
Deputy Hyder testified that he followed Defendant onto the ramp to I-840 and for
“about another mile or so” after they entered the interstate. Deputy Hyder said that, while
following Defendant, he observed Defendant failing to maintain his lane of travel several
times. At mile marker 34, Deputy Hyder initiated his patrol car’s blue lights and sirens
and “hit . . . [his] air horn to initiate a traffic stop.” Deputy Hyder stated that failure to
maintain a lane was a citable offense and grounds for an investigatory stop; additionally,
based upon Defendant’s driving, he suspected Defendant was driving under the influence.
Deputy Hyder testified that Defendant refused to stop and continued traveling down
the interstate. As he followed Defendant, Deputy Hyder observed Defendant’s driving
“back and forth[,] continuously crossing lines.” Deputy Hyder obtained the tag number to
Defendant’s vehicle and provided it to dispatch. Deputy Hyder continued to pursue
Defendant for more than twenty miles, but Defendant never stopped his vehicle.
Deputy Hyder testified that, around mile marker 50, a Rutherford County officer set
up a spike strip in the left-hand lane but that Defendant “swerved right into the emergency
lane, completely off there; came back in, dodging the spike strip[.]” Then, around mile
marker 52, a trooper with the Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) set a spike strip in the right-
hand lane. Deputy Hyder said that Defendant avoided the spike strip by driving
“completely off into the grass on the right side” and that Defendant then got back on the
-2-
road and kept going. Deputy Hyder testified that he was instructed by his supervisor that,
once THP became involved, he should terminate his pursuit. He said that, after Defendant
avoided the second spike strip, he terminated his pursuit, with the THP taking over the
pursuit “just east of Almaville,” outside of Williamson County.
Deputy Hyder explained that the patrol car he was driving was equipped with a dash
camera that was activated when he turned on his emergency equipment and was
programmed to “go back 30 seconds” and begin recording. He said that his camera
recorded his pursuit of Defendant and that he attempted to preserve the video by marking
it as a “pursuit” in the WCSO computer system. He said that, when he attempted to obtain
a copy of his video for trial, he learned that it had not been preserved. He testified, “In our
system, you have to mark it a certain way. It keeps it for so long. I marked it as pursuit. I
spoke to the lady that does the video stuff. She has no idea why it wasn’t preserved. I have
no control over it.”
Corporal George Barrett with the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD)
testified that, anytime a police pursuit crossed over into Rutherford County, the sheriff’s
department decided whether to intervene “based off of their reason for the stop” and that
the department would then “choose whether to continue the pursuit, assist in terminating
the pursuit, or assist them while they are proceeding through our county in pursuit.”
Corporal Barrett explained that, if he saw someone commit additional traffic offenses in
Rutherford County, he could stop the driver for that reason, even if a pursuit from another
county had been terminated.
Corporal Barrett stated that, on January 1, 2021, there were additional officers on
patrol because it was New Year’s Day. He stated that, at approximately 9:20 a.m., he was
on Florence Road near I-840 “when dispatch came over the radio advising that Williamson
County had a vehicle failing to stop, and they were in pursuit.” Corporal Barrett proceeded
to mile marker 52 on I-840, intending to deploy a spike strip to disable the fleeing vehicle.
While waiting, Corporal Barrett heard Deputy Jason Brown announce over the radio that
Defendant’s vehicle had missed Deputy Brown’s spike strip at mile marker 50 and that
Defendant was continuing eastbound on I-840. As Defendant drove toward Corporal
Barrett’s location, Corporal Barrett saw multiple police officers in pursuit behind
Defendant.
Corporal Barrett testified that it was raining as he moved into the roadway and
deployed his spike strip. He said that Defendant “drove off the right shoulder of the
roadway, avoiding the deployment.” He estimated that Defendant was driving between
twenty to thirty miles an hour when he drove “all the way off the roadway” and then came
back up onto the roadway while continuing to be pursued. Corporal Barrett retracted and
collected the spike strip and then joined the pursuit. Corporal Barrett testified that another
-3-
deputy set up a spike strip at Exit 57. After Defendant avoided that spike strip, THP
discontinued their pursuit, and RCSD Sergeant Kyle Frazier instructed all Rutherford
County deputies that were in pursuit of Defendant to terminate their pursuit as well.
Corporal Barrett said that, after terminating his pursuit, he continued down I-840
and took Exit 61 onto Jefferson Pike. He turned right and started toward Walter Hill and
then observed Defendant in front of him. There was traffic on the roadway. Corporal
Barrett followed Defendant on Jefferson Pike and saw him cross “left of center several
times” into the oncoming lane of traffic. Defendant also crossed over the fog line one time.
Corporal Barrett testified that, as they approached the intersection of Jefferson Pike
and Old Lascassas Road, another deputy was at the intersection ready to deploy a spike
strip at a stop sign there. After the deputy deployed the spike strip, however, Defendant
turned left, prior to the stop sign, and drove around the spike strip and through a church
parking lot. At that point, Corporal Barrett activated his emergency equipment and
attempted to stop Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant refused to stop for Corporal Barrett; he
exited the parking lot onto Lascassas Pike and picked up speed, going between fifty-five
and sixty-five miles per hour. Corporal Barrett testified that the posted speed limit on
Lascassas Pike was fifty-five miles per hour.
Corporal Barrett testified that, as they proceeded inbound toward Murfreesboro,
they went through several intersections, and as they approached Northfield Boulevard,
Defendant turned into a parking lot of a Subway and Family Dollar where there were other
vehicles. Defendant drove through that parking lot and into the parking lot of an abandoned
Food Lion. Corporal Barrett pulled across an exit to the Food Lion parking lot in an attempt
to block it; Defendant drove right at him, but “at the last moment, [Defendant] turned right
-- went in front of [his] patrol car; and turned right onto Northfield Boulevard.” Defendant
then ran a red light at Pitts Lane. At that time, Sergeant Frazier terminated the pursuit
because traffic “was starting to pick up” and they were “entering the city.” Corporal Barrett
explained that it was continuing to rain and that the conditions were not safe for a pursuit.
Corporal Barrett testified that he later heard from dispatch that officers from the
Murfreesboro Police Department had observed Defendant’s vehicle at the intersection of
Northfield Boulevard and Memorial Boulevard. Corporal Barrett drove in that direction
and saw Defendant turn left into another parking lot by Walter Hill Baptist Church.
Sergeant Frazier, who was also in the area, attempted to block the exit of the parking lot.
Corporal Barrett testified that he saw Defendant attempting to exit the parking lot through
the driveway that Sergeant Frazier was occupying. He explained, “I observed Sergeant
Frazier open his driver’s side door, and start to give commands to the driver.” Defendant
then drove forward into Sergeant Frazier’s patrol car. At that time, Deputy Aaron Price
made contact with Defendant’s vehicle in an attempt to disable it. Corporal Barrett
-4-
testified, “Sergeant Frazier had started to use his patrol car to push the . . . suspect vehicle
backwards at the same time that Deputy Price was trying to push the vehicle sideways . . .
and push it back into the parking lot. Again, in an attempt to disable it.”
Corporal Barrett said that he parked behind Defendant’s vehicle. He then
approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, giving verbal commands for Defendant to exit
the car. He had to reach through the open driver’s side window, put the vehicle in park,
and turn off the vehicle because Defendant was not complying with the officers’
commands. He said that officers pulled Defendant out of the vehicle and that Deputy Price
conducted a leg sweep on Defendant to get him to the ground and in handcuffs. Officers
then called for an ambulance to check Defendant for any injuries.
Corporal Barrett said that Defendant “was acting confused wondering why we were
trying to stop him.” Corporal Barrett later determined that Defendant did not have a valid
driver’s license; he said that a computer check revealed that Defendant’s license was
suspended. The following exchange then occurred regarding Corporal Barrett’s
observations of Defendant after officers removed him from the vehicle:
Q. And did you have reason to suspect [Defendant] might have
originally been driving under the influence?
A. His driving, yes, ma’am. I . . . was able to smell, you know,
whether there was an odor of intoxicant. There was not. I was able to tell
by his general demeanor; the way he was talking. He wasn’t slurring his
words or anything like that. So I was not looking further into driving under
the influence.
Dash camera video of the pursuit from Corporal Barrett’s patrol car was introduced
as an exhibit to his testimony. He explained that the video first showed his attempt to stop
Defendant using the spike strip. He said that, after the pursuit was terminated and he turned
off his emergency equipment, his dash camera stopped recording. Corporal Barrett stated
that he turned on his emergency equipment again prior to Lascassas Pike, so the video
showed that pursuit as well. He said that the dash camera was again turned off when he
terminated the pursuit at Pitts Lane and that it was reactivated “just after the intersection
of Highway 231 North and Pearcy Street.”
On cross-examination, Corporal Barrett testified that his dash camera video did not
capture the moment Defendant’s vehicle hit Sergeant Frazier’s patrol car. He explained
that he did not have his camera on at that time because he had not activated his emergency
equipment.
-5-
Deputy Aaron Price of the RCSD testified that, on the morning of January 1, 2021,
he heard the call of a pursuit from Williamson County in which they were requesting
assistance. He responded to the area and saw Defendant on Jefferson Pike, as Defendant
was driving toward Lascassas Pike. Deputy Price followed behind Corporal Barrett after
Corporal Barrett gave instructions to another deputy to set up a spike strip ahead. Deputy
Price testified that, when Defendant came to the intersection at Lascassas Pike, the other
deputy deployed the spike strip and that he and Corporal Barrett activated their lights and
sirens. Defendant drove around the spike strip, around a stop sign and off the road, and
then back onto the road. Defendant then fled into a church parking lot before turning back
onto Lascassas Pike “going inbound toward the City of Murfreesboro.” Deputy Price
recalled that it was raining and that he took the lead during this pursuit. He said that there
were other vehicles on the road on Lascassas Pike that had to pull over to the side “real
fast.” He testified that Defendant was driving “slightly above the speed limit” and that
Defendant refused to pull over “all the way until we got to the city limits . . . and continued
once we pulled into another parking lot in the city.” This parking lot contained three open
businesses, and there were other vehicles in the parking lot. Deputy Price testified:
And as we exited that parking lot, we then went into the larger parking lot of
Food Lion, where I remember seeing a large box truck and one other vehicle.
And as we exited that parking lot, there was a vehicle pulling in that had to
pull over due to the fact that they saw us coming[.]
Deputy Price testified that Sergeant Frazier terminated the pursuit when they entered
Murfreesboro city limits. Deputy Price turned off his emergency equipment but continued
following Defendant at a safe distance. Deputy Price said that, when Defendant pulled into
another parking lot, he followed Defendant into the parking lot, and Sergeant Frazier
blocked the other parking lot exit. Deputy Price testified that Defendant tried to exit the
parking lot but hit Sergeant Frazier’s patrol car “head-on.” Using the push bar on the front
of his patrol car, Deputy Price pushed into the passenger side of Defendant’s vehicle to
keep Defendant from fleeing any farther. Defendant attempted to back out, but other patrol
vehicles were able to pin in Defendant’s vehicle. Deputy Price said that he gave Defendant
commands to get out of his vehicle and that, when Defendant did not respond to his
commands to “get down,” he used a leg sweep “to assist [Defendant] down.” Deputy Price
testified that, after they handcuffed Defendant, Defendant was “pretty hyper” and said
multiple times, “I didn’t do anything.”
THP Sergeant Shawn Boyd testified that, on January 1, 2021, he received a call
from dispatch that Williamson County was in pursuit of a vehicle and was requesting
assistance from the THP. Sergeant Boyd observed Defendant’s vehicle traveling outbound
on Highway 231, and he got behind Defendant. Sergeant Boyd said that, when Defendant
noticed that Sergeant Boyd and additional county units were following him, Defendant
-6-
passed three cars, going over the double yellow line into oncoming traffic to do so.
Sergeant Boyd said that Defendant then suddenly turned into a church parking lot off
Highway 231 where officers were able to pin in Defendant’s vehicle and disable it.
Sergeant Boyd said that he saw Defendant’s vehicle hit Sergeant Frazier’s patrol vehicle,
stating that Defendant “went nose-to-nose with Sergeant Frazier.” He said that Defendant
had to be extracted from his vehicle and taken to the ground to be placed in handcuffs.
On cross-examination, Sergeant Boyd testified that, based upon Defendant’s
driving, someone could have been injured; he testified that he saw Defendant commit
traffic offenses, including improperly passing three vehicles on a double yellow line.
Sergeant Boyd agreed that, in addition to Defendant’s charges in Rutherford County,
Defendant was charged with evading arrest in Williamson County.
Sergeant Kyle Frazier of the RCSD testified that dispatch initially received a
“BOLO” or be on the lookout for a silver Chevy Tahoe that was on I-840 in a pursuit with
Williamson County. He said that he was supervising Rutherford County’s response to the
pursuit but that he was not a part of it. Sergeant Frazier stated, “So I was aware, listening,
and tracking throughout the whole 40-minute interaction or whatever that interaction was.”
He said that, after the failed attempts with the spike strips, he “disallowed the pursuit
because it was evident that [Defendant] wasn’t going to stop.” He terminated the pursuit
when Defendant exited I-840 onto Jefferson Pike. Sergeant Frazier explained that, after
Defendant went around the spike strip, through a parking lot, and back onto Lascassas Pike,
he again allowed a pursuit “for a short period of time.” When Defendant turned onto
Northfield Boulevard, however, he discontinued the pursuit because Defendant was
refusing to stop.
Sergeant Frazier said that, after he discontinued the pursuit, he saw the suspect
vehicle on Memorial Boulevard. Sergeant Frazier and Sergeant Boyd followed behind
Defendant and, at 10:04 a.m., Sergeant Frazier “radio’ed out that [Defendant] . . . was
passing vehicles in the head-on lane of travel.” Sergeant Frazier testified that, when
Defendant turned into a parking lot by a church, he drove around to the other entrance of
the parking lot and positioned his patrol car to block it. Sergeant Frazier testified that his
patrol vehicle was “going like 0.3 miles per hour when it was struck in the front” by
Defendant’s vehicle. Deputy Price then struck Defendant’s vehicle in the side, and
Corporal Barrett got behind the vehicle to pin in Defendant. Sergeant Frazier said that
there was only minor damage to the front push bar of his patrol car.
Sergeant Frazier testified that Defendant did not comply with officers’ commands
and had to be removed from his vehicle. Sergeant Frazier testified that officers were
concerned that Defendant was driving under the influence because Defendant was “not
-7-
acting what we would call ‘normal’ in any sense.” As such, Sergeant Frazier called for
EMS to evaluate Defendant.
Sergeant Frazier said that there was a dash camera video from his patrol car and that
he attempted to preserve the video. He testified, “So we mark videos for evidentiary value
with a case number and . . . then it gets stored into the cloud on our evidence management
database system.” He explained, however, that the video was “discarded after six months”
even though he had requested that it be saved.
Defendant testified that he was fifty-eight years old at the time of the incident.
Defendant testified that he had been diagnosed with Covid and secondary pneumonia and
hospitalized from December 17-25, 2020. He said that, after getting out of the hospital, he
stayed with his brother in Jackson on New Year’s Eve. He stated that, on New Year’s Day,
he had planned to return some equipment to a lady in Fairview and that he had been driving
his brother’s silver Chevy Tahoe. Defendant testified that, while on I-840, he missed a
turn and “got turned around[,]” so he got off the interstate. He said that he was going to
get back on the interstate but got caught at a red light before he could turn onto the ramp.
He denied that he stopped in the middle of the road. Defendant said that he saw Deputy
Hyder drive past him before he turned onto the ramp to I-840.
During Defendant’s testimony, the following exchange occurred:
Q. Were you going the direction you intended to go?
A. At the time, I thought I was, but I was not.
Q. Do you believe your illness had affected you?
A. Yes.
Q. In what way?
A. I was out of character.
Defendant continued:
[W]hen I got ready to get on the freeway, I pulled over and got myself on
because I seen the officer look. I felt like he was going to turn around. I got
my cell phone. It was on airplane mode. I entered onto the expressway. And
there was a little white Nissan trailing behind me.
-8-
Defendant said that, eventually, Deputy Hyder turned “his signal light on to get behind
me.” Defendant stated that they drove another fifteen minutes or more before the “little
white Nissan” exited the interstate. At that point, Deputy Hyder turned on his blue lights
and sirens. Defendant testified that Deputy Hyder’s attempted stop was “just out of the
blue[.]” He said, “My first thought I said, Lord, . . . what do I do? And the first thing that
came in my mind is: Don’t pull over until I see a witness.”
Defendant admitted that he drove around the first spike strip but said that he slowed
down before doing so. He testified that he finally decided to stop once he realized he was
in Murfreesboro and saw officers from the Murfreesboro Police Department; he said,
“[T]hat’s when I pulled into that church lot and gave up. I realized that I had other officers,
instead of [the] Williamson County officer that was behind me. And I felt a little more
secure.”
Defendant denied hitting Sergeant Frazier’s patrol vehicle, stating that the video did
not show “when we connected[.]” Defendant said that he was wearing his seat belt and
that the officer who pulled him out of the vehicle had to disconnect it. Defendant recalled
that he told the officers that his “oxygen level had dropped” and that he asked the officers
to “give [him] a minute” to get his oxygen level back up before exiting his vehicle. When
asked how it would make him feel when his oxygen level got low, Defendant responded,
“You’re -- you can’t hardly breathe. You’re tense. Just weird.” Defendant admitted that
he ran one red light during the pursuit.
Defendant said that he did not stop for Deputy Hyder because he was afraid.
Defendant testified:
The way he stayed behind me so long; and once I seen the last vehicle pull
off the expressway, I looked around, and I [saw] nobody else on the
expressway, but me and him. I felt like he had plenty of time to run . . . tags,
and anything else to put his lights on. And he didn’t to it until that last car .
. . exited off.
On cross-examination, Defendant testified that his brother had not wanted him to
leave that day because he thought Defendant was “acting funny.” Defendant testified, “He
said I was out of character. I was not myself.” When asked if he was driving “a little
strangely” because he did not know where he was, Defendant said that it was possible.
Defendant agreed that he should not have been driving and that he was confused.
Defendant denied that Deputy Hyder activated his lights and sirens shortly after they
got onto I-840. He said that the deputy followed him for almost fifteen minutes. When
asked why he did not stop at mile marker 50 when he encountered the first spike strip,
-9-
Defendant replied, “I slowed down. I hollered out my window, I don’t know why they
charge -- why they are trailing me. Nobody pulled up to try to block me in. I put my signal
light on and went around it.” Defendant also acknowledged driving off the road at the
second spike strip at mile marker 52; he said that he saw THP vehicles but did not notice
any Rutherford County vehicles at that time. When asked if he was paying attention to the
road, Defendant responded, “I was not coherent. I was out of character.” Defendant said
that he was speeding because he was “forced to speed” and claimed that an officer tried to
hit the back of his vehicle while Defendant was on the interstate. Defendant said that he
knew what he was doing was dangerous and that, after he avoided the second spike strip,
he exited the interstate.
Defendant testified that, when he came to the last spike strip, he came to a complete
stop and then went around them; he agreed that he went into the oncoming lane of traffic.
He acknowledged that he drove through a parking lot, where there were several businesses,
and then onto Lascassas Pike, where officers again turned on their lights and sirens.
Defendant agreed that he should have stopped and admitted that he did not do so. He said
that he intended to stop in the first parking lot he entered but that “[t]here was not a person
out there.”
At the close of proof, the trial court held a charge conference, during which the court
addressed Defendant’s written request for specific jury instructions. As relevant here,
Defendant contended that the video of traffic violations he allegedly committed in
Williamson County was not preserved by the State and that, as such, the court should
instruct the jury with Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction—Criminal 42.23, Duty to Preserve
Evidence.1 In response, the State argued that, pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912,
915-16 (Tenn. 1999), it did not have a duty to preserve the dash camera video from
Williamson County Deputy Hyder’s patrol car. The State asserted that Deputy Hyder’s
dash camera video was not constitutionally material to the Rutherford County case and
1
Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction—Criminal 42.23 provides as follows:
The State has a duty to gather, preserve, and produce at trial evidence which may
possess exculpatory value. Such evidence must be of such a nature that the defendant
would be unable to obtain comparable evidence through reasonably available means. The
State has no duty to gather or indefinitely preserve evidence considered by a qualified
person to have no exculpatory value, so that an as yet unknown defendant may later
examine the evidence.
If, after considering all of the proof, you find that the State failed to gather or
preserve evidence, the contents or qualities of which are at issue and the production of
which would more probably than not be of benefit to the defendant, you may infer that the
absent evidence would be favorable to the defendant.
- 10 -
argued that dash camera video from Rutherford County showed Defendant committing
multiple traffic infractions and evading law enforcement in Rutherford County, thereby
negating the relevance of Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video from Williamson County.
The trial court found the State did not have a duty to preserve Deputy Hyder’s dash
camera video. The court found that this lost video would be relevant and may possess
exculpatory value “if . . . Defendant was on trial in Williamson County for his conduct
there”; however, the court found no apparent exculpatory value in Deputy Hyder’s dash
camera video as to the instant Rutherford County case. Accordingly, the trial court
declined to provide the jury with Defendant’s requested instruction regarding the State’s
duty to preserve evidence.
Following deliberations, the jury found Defendant guilty of evading arrest, reckless
driving, and driving on a revoked or suspended license. The jury found Defendant not
guilty of resisting arrest. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant, as
a Range I standard offender, to two years for evading arrest; six months for reckless
driving; and six months for driving on a revoked or suspended license. The court
suspended Defendant’s sentences following the service of sixty days in jail and ordered
that all counts run concurrently.
Defendant filed a timely motion for new trial and amended motion for new trial.
Following a hearing, the trial court entered a written order denying the motion for new
trial. This timely appeal follows.
II. Analysis
On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the State
did not have a duty to preserve Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video and by denying his
request for a jury instruction regarding the State’s duty to preserve evidence. Defendant
asserts that the testimony regarding the basis for Deputy Hyder’s attempted stop in
Williamson County “differed widely” and that the variation between Defendant’s
testimony and Deputy Hyder’s testimony highlighted “the need for the dashcam video as
an objective account” of the basis for Deputy Hyder’s initiating of his lights and sirens.
Defendant contends that the trial court should have viewed the pursuit in Williamson
County and the pursuit in Rutherford County as “one continuous event.” He maintains that
Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video was “critically important” to the defense, asserting that
Deputy Hyder “had no legitimate basis for initiating a stop” and that the dash camera video
“would have put to rest any questions about which narrative was to be believed.”
Defendant further argues that the trial court did not properly weigh the Ferguson factors
and that “a proper weighing” demonstrates the need for the requested jury instruction.
- 11 -
The State responds that the trial court properly concluded that it had no duty to
preserve Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video and that the court acted within its discretion
by declining to provide the jury with Defendant’s requested instruction.
The question of “[w]hether a trial, conducted without the destroyed evidence, would
be fundamentally fair” concerns a constitutional issue, which appellate courts review de
novo with no presumption of correctness. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 914; State v. Crass, 660
S.W.3d 506, 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). Where fundamental unfairness results,
appellate courts will review the trial court’s remedial action for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Merriman, 410 S.W.3d 779, 791-92 (Tenn. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs
when the trial court applies “an incorrect legal standard, reaching an illogical conclusion,
or basing a decision on an erroneous assessment of the evidence.” State v. Rimmer, 623
S.W.3d 235, 260 (Tenn. 2021). Appellate courts will not overrule a trial court’s decision
“when the chosen remedy is consistent with the findings made by the trial court utilizing
the Ferguson considerations.” Merriman, 410 S.W.3d at 791-92; see Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d
at 917.
The Due Process Clause, pursuant to the Federal and Tennessee Constitutions,
guarantees criminal defendants the right to a fair trial. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1;
TENN. CONST. art. I, § 8; see id. § 9. To facilitate this right, the prosecution must provide
exculpatory evidence that raises a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, United
States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 98 (1976), or, upon request, provide evidence “material either
to guilt or to punishment,” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
In Ferguson, our supreme court “explained that the loss or destruction of potentially
exculpatory evidence may violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Merriman, 410
S.W.3d at 784 (citing Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 915-16). The court determined that the due
process required under the Tennessee Constitution was broader than that required under
the United States Constitution and rejected the “bad faith” analysis adopted by the United
States Supreme Court. Id. at 784-85 (quoting Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58
(1988)). Instead, the court in Ferguson adopted a balancing approach in which a trial court
must determine “[w]hether a trial, conducted without the [lost or] destroyed evidence,
would be fundamentally fair.” Id. at 785 (quoting Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 914).
When a defendant raises a Ferguson claim, a trial court must first “determine
whether the State had a duty to preserve the evidence.” Merriman, 410 S.W.3d at 785.
“[T]he State’s duty to preserve evidence is limited to constitutionally material evidence
described as ‘evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s
defense.’” Id. (quoting Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 917). To meet this constitutional materiality
standard, “the evidence must potentially possess exculpatory value and be of such a nature
- 12 -
that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably
available means.” Id. (footnote omitted).
If the proof demonstrates the existence of a duty to preserve evidence and further
shows that the State has failed in that duty, a court must proceed with a balancing analysis
involving consideration of the following factors:
1. The degree of negligence involved;
2. The significance of the destroyed evidence, considered in light of the
probative value and reliability of secondary or substitute evidence that
remains available; and
3. The sufficiency of the other evidence used at trial to support the
conviction.
Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 917 (footnote omitted). The trial court is required to balance these
factors to determine whether conducting a trial without the missing evidence would be
fundamentally fair. Merriman, 410 S.W.3d at 785. “If the trial court concludes that a trial
would be fundamentally unfair without the missing evidence, the trial court may then
impose an appropriate remedy to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial, including, but
not limited to, dismissing the charges or providing a jury instruction.” Id. at 785-86.
In this case, the trial court found that the State did not have a duty to preserve Deputy
Hyder’s dash camera video for the purposes of Defendant’s trial for offenses committed in
Rutherford County. The trial court found that, although Defendant could not obtain
comparable evidence, Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video lacked exculpatory value and,
therefore, was not constitutionally material. We agree with the trial court’s determination.
Defendant was on trial in Rutherford County for actions that took place in
Rutherford County, and dash camera video of the Rutherford County offenses from
Corporal Barrett’s patrol car was played to the jury, which found Defendant guilty of felony
evading arrest, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked or suspended license. Deputy
Hyder testified that he attempted to stop Defendant at mile marker 34 in Williamson
County and that he terminated his pursuit of Defendant soon after crossing into Rutherford
County. Under these facts, we cannot conclude that Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video
was “evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in [the] defense” during
Defendant’s trial for offenses committed in Rutherford County. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at
- 13 -
917. Thus, the State had no duty to preserve Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video for
Defendant’s trial in the instant case.2 See Merriman, 410 S.W.3d at 785.
Furthermore, even if the State had a duty to preserve Deputy Hyder’s dash camera
video, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s requested jury
instruction. In its analysis, the trial court considered the Ferguson factors and found that
the failure to preserve the dash camera video was the result of simple negligence, and this
finding is supported by the record. Deputy Hyder testified that he marked the recording as
a “pursuit” to ensure that the computer system in Williamson County would save and
maintain the video. After discovering that the video was missing, Deputy Hyder spoke to
an employee in charge of video record-keeping, who said she had “no idea why it wasn’t
preserved.” Thus, we agree that the failure to preserve Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video
was the result of simple negligence.
Regarding the second Ferguson factor, the trial court found that Deputy Hyder’s
dash camera video would have had little significance in the case. The court noted that
Defendant was on trial based on his actions in Rutherford County rather than for his
behavior in Williamson County and that the instant case was “not a case like Merriman
where a video’s significance would have been increased because of a lack of other
evidence.” The court found that there was “plenty of other evidence . . . introduced at trial,
including video evidence from Rutherford County.” Again, the record supports this
determination by the trial court. Deputy Hyder testified that he attempted to stop Defendant
because he suspected Defendant was “driving under the influence,” and Defendant
admitted that he “was not coherent” and possibly “driving strangely” that morning. Three
other officers involved in the pursuit also testified that they suspected Defendant was
driving under the influence, as reflected in video evidence introduced at trial. The video
evidence from Rutherford County showed Defendant’s attempts to evade police, his
swerving off the road, and his overall poor driving. We thus agree with the trial court’s
conclusion that the dash camera video from Deputy Hyder’s patrol car would have little
significance in the instant case.
In considering the third Ferguson factor, the trial court found that the other evidence
presented at trial was more than sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions in this case.
We agree. As noted by the trial court, the jury heard testimony from five law enforcement
2
Although Defendant asserts that the dash camera video would have shown whether Deputy Hyder
had a valid basis to stop him, we note that Deputy Hyder testified the dash camera was only programmed
to go back and record thirty seconds prior to his turning on his lights and sirens. It is unclear from Deputy
Hyder’s testimony whether Defendant’s alleged traffic violations or other suspicious driving occurred
within the thirty seconds prior to Deputy Hyder’s activating his lights and sirens and would have been
caught on the recording. In other words, if Defendant’s alleged conduct occurred outside of the thirty-
second window, the video may not have served to clarify the circumstances of the attempted stop.
- 14 -
officers who pursued Defendant in Rutherford County, and the jury viewed dash camera
video from Rutherford County. Additionally, Defendant admitted under cross-
examination that he committed traffic violations in Rutherford County and did not pull
over when Rutherford County officers attempted to stop him, and Defendant stipulated that
his license was revoked or suspended on January 1, 2021, when he was driving in
Rutherford County. The evidence was clearly sufficient to support Defendant’s
convictions.
Because the degree of negligence involved in the loss or destruction of Deputy
Hyder’s dash camera video was minimal, the probative value and reliability of other
evidence outweighed the significance of Deputy Hyder’s dash camera video, and the
evidence at trial overwhelmingly supported Defendant’s convictions, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s request to instruct the jury regarding the State’s
duty to preserve evidence. Defendant is not entitled to relief.
III. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
____________________________________
ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE
- 15 -