Bailey test in Vermont

2016First, the third element of the Bailey test is the weight of “other evidence of guilt adduced at trial,” id. at 9 95, 475 A.2d at 1050 , and this element makes sense only if the unpreserved evidence relates only to guilt or innocence.

2016First, the third element of the Bailey test is the weight of “other evidence of guilt adduced at trial,” id. at 9 95, 475 A.2d at 1050 , and this element makes sense only if the unpreserved evidence relates only to guilt or innocence.

2016See State v. Porter, 2014 VT 89, ¶ 29 , 197 Vt. 330 , 103 A.3d 916 (stating that although “police do not have a duty to collect all evidence that could potentially favor the defense,” there could be situations where negligent conduct by police was sufficiently prejudicial to defendant to warrant sanctions, in which case, “the Bailey test is an adequately flexible method to determine the appropriate sanction”). ¶ 6.

2016See State v. Porter, 2014 VT 89, ¶ 29 , 197 Vt. 330 , 103 A.3d 916 (stating that although “police do not have a duty to collect all evidence that could potentially favor the defense,” there could be situations where negligent conduct by police was sufficiently prejudicial to defendant to warrant sanctions, in which case, “the Bailey test is an adequately flexible method to determine the appropriate sanction”). ¶ 6.

2016See, e.g., Porter, 2014 VT 89, ¶¶ 27, 30 (concluding trial court “appropriately applied the Bailey test” in case where potentially exculpatory evidence was blood from victim’s face, victim’s fingernail clippings, clothes and scrapings, and hair found in her clothing, which went to identity of attacker); State v. Gibney, 2003 VT 26, ¶ 42 , 175 Vt. 180 , 825 A.2d 32 (affirming trial court’s “pragmatic balancing of the Bailey factors” finding there was no violation of Article 10 in police officers’ destruction of their investigatory notes); State v. Devine, 168 Vt. 566, 568 , 719 A.2d 861, 864 (1

2016See, e.g., Porter, 2014 VT 89, ¶¶ 27, 30 (concluding trial court “appropriately applied the Bailey test” in case where potentially exculpatory evidence was blood from victim’s face, victim’s fingernail clippings, clothes and scrapings, and hair found in her clothing, which went to identity of attacker); State v. Gibney, 2003 VT 26, ¶ 42 , 175 Vt. 180 , 825 A.2d 32 (affirming trial court’s “pragmatic balancing of the Bailey factors” finding there was no violation of Article 10 in police officers’ destruction of their investigatory notes); State v. Devine, 168 Vt. 566, 568 , 719 A.2d 861, 864 (1

2017Compare State v. Lettieri , 149 Vt. 340 , 344, 543 A.2d 683 , 685 (1988) ("An objection made on the wrong grounds and overruled below precludes a party from making a different objection on other, tenable grounds on appeal.") with State v. Porter , 2014 VT 89 , ¶¶ 9-10, 197 Vt. 330 , 103 A.3d 916 (concluding that defendant's hearsay objection was sufficient to preserve issue of admissibility under Vermont Rule of Evidence 602 because "issues of hearsay and personal knowledge are closely linked in this case").

2017Compare State v. Lettieri , 149 Vt. 340 , 344, 543 A.2d 683 , 685 (1988) ("An objection made on the wrong grounds and overruled below precludes a party from making a different objection on other, tenable grounds on appeal.") with State v. Porter , 2014 VT 89 , ¶¶ 9-10, 197 Vt. 330 , 103 A.3d 916 (concluding that defendant's hearsay objection was sufficient to preserve issue of admissibility under Vermont Rule of Evidence 602 because "issues of hearsay and personal knowledge are closely linked in this case").

2016See, e.g., Porter, 2014 VT 89, ¶¶ 27, 30 (concluding trial court “appropriately applied the Bailey test” in case where potentially exculpatory evidence was blood from victim’s face, victim’s fingernail clippings, clothes and scrapings, and hair found in her clothing, which went to identity of attacker); State v. Gibney, 2003 VT 26, ¶ 42 , 175 Vt. 180 , 825 A.2d 32 (affirming trial court’s “pragmatic balancing of the Bailey factors” finding there was no violation of Article 10 in police officers’ destruction of their investigatory notes); State v. Devine, 168 Vt. 566, 568 , 719 A.2d 861, 864 (1

2016See, e.g., Porter, 2014 VT 89, ¶¶ 27, 30 (concluding trial court “appropriately applied the Bailey test” in case where potentially exculpatory evidence was blood from victim’s face, victim’s fingernail clippings, clothes and scrapings, and hair found in her clothing, which went to identity of attacker); State v. Gibney, 2003 VT 26, ¶ 42 , 175 Vt. 180 , 825 A.2d 32 (affirming trial court’s “pragmatic balancing of the Bailey factors” finding there was no violation of Article 10 in police officers’ destruction of their investigatory notes); State v. Devine, 168 Vt. 566, 568 , 719 A.2d 861, 864 (1

2016Thus, even though police do not have a duty to collect all potentially exculpatory evidence, the Bailey factors apply in situations where the State’s failure to procure potentially exculpatory evidence results in prejudice—for example, failing to procure a bloody knife lying next to a body in a murder case, see State v. Wheelock, 158 Vt. 302, 312 , 609 A.2d 972, 978 (1992). ¶ 16.

2016Thus, even though police do not have a duty to collect all potentially exculpatory evidence, the Bailey factors apply in situations where the State’s failure to procure potentially exculpatory evidence results in prejudice—for example, failing to procure a bloody knife lying next to a body in a murder case, see State v. Wheelock, 158 Vt. 302, 312 , 609 A.2d 972, 978 (1992). ¶ 16.