holding the state due process clause does not provide greater protection than the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence
How later courts described this case
- holding the state due process clause does not provide greater protection than the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence
- holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying defendant’s motion to dismiss when it found that the State acted “reasonably and in good faith”
- noting that when semen samples sent in the mail, per routine procedure, thawed before they reached the FBI, nothing in the facts of the case indicated bad faith and, thus, there was no violation of due process
- holding the state *711 due process clause does not provide greater protection than the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Condon, 182 Wash. 2d 307 (2015)
119 Wn.2d 294, 310 , 831 P.2d 1060 (1992), overruled on other grounds, State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307 , 343 P.3d 357
The opinion
Dolliver, J.
(concurring) — I would affirm the conviction based on the majority opinion, which states either the Youngblood test (Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 , 102 L. Ed. 2d 281 , 109 S. Ct. 333 (1988)) or the Vaster test (State v. Vaster, 99 Wn.2d 44 , 659 P.2d 528 (1983)) would apply. This being so, I see no need to decide here whether under the due process clause in the state constitution (Const. art. 1, § 3) the Vaster analysis can be maintained.