# State v. Ortiz

> Washington Supreme Court · June 11, 1992 · 119 Wash. 2d 294

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620230

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Mario Ortiz, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 11, 1992
- **Citations:** 119 Wash. 2d 294; 831 P.2d 1060; 1992 Wash. LEXIS 156
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dolliver
- **Judges:** Durham, Dolliver, Johnson, Smith
- **Cited by:** 194 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by State v. Condon, 182 Wash. 2d 307 (2015).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620230

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding that no analytic basis exist ed to interpret Washington’s due process clause more broadly than the federal provisions

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620230. Public record. Not legal advice.