# State v. Steffes

> North Dakota Supreme Court · May 26, 1993 · 500 N.W.2d 608

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9857835

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Duane Allen STEFFES, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** North Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 26, 1993
- **Citations:** 500 N.W.2d 608; 1993 N.D. LEXIS 94; 1993 WL 174273
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meschke
- **Judges:** Vande Walle, Sandstrom, Neumann, Levine, Meschke
- **Cited by:** 59 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9857835

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[p]olice generally have no duty to collect evidence for the defense"
- stating “actions ... potentially prejudicial to the accused, may warrant different rules if ... commonplace.”

## Opinion text

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion for the court by Chief Justice VandeWalle. I write separately only to point out that, in a proper case, either the prosecution or defense in a criminal trial would be entitled to a correct jury instruction, similar to NDJI-Civil 1625, on an adverse inference against the party that fails to produce or destroys evidence under his control, if no satisfactory explanation for that failure is given. See 29 AmJur2d Evidence §§ 178, 179 (1967); Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, § 146 (13th ed. 1972); 2 Wig-more, Evidence §§ 290, 291 (Chadbourn rev. 1979). A party is entitled to a jury instruction if there is evidence to support it. State v. Thiel, 411 N.W.2d 66 (N.D.1987).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9857835. Public record. Not legal advice.