What is the legal test for destroying or destroying evidence in a criminal case?

Law enforcement agencies have a duty to preserve evidence "that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense." (California v. Trombetta, supra, 467 U.S. at p. 488.) To fall within the scope of this duty, evidence must be "constitutionally material[]," meaning it "must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable available means." (Id. at p. 489.) If "no more can be said [of the evidence] than that it could have been subjected to tests, the

Page 6

results of which might have exonerated the defendant," a due process violation will be found only if the police acted in bad faith. (Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, 488 U.S. at p. 57.)