spoliation instruction in Iowa

2026“A spoliation instruction is a direction to the jury that it may infer from the State’s failure to preserve evidence that the evidence would have been adverse to the State.” State v. Hartsfield, 681 N.W.2d 626, 630 (Iowa 2004) (cleaned up).

2026A spoliation instruction is justified if substantial evidence shows: “(1) the evidence was in existence; (2) the evidence was in the possession of or under control of the party charged with its destruction; (3) the evidence would have been admissible at trial; and (4) the party responsible for its destruction did so intentionally.” Id. (cleaned up).

2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016).

2018To justify a spoliation instruction, substantial evidence must show: "(1) the evidence was in existence; (2) the evidence was in the possession of or under control of the party charged with its destruction; (3) the evidence would have been admissible at trial; and (4) the party responsible for its destruction did so intentionally." Id. (citing State v. Langlet , 283 N.W.2d 330 , 335 (Iowa 1979) ).

2021“A spoliation instruction is ‘a direction to the jury that it [may] infer from the State’s failure to preserve [evidence] that the evidence would have been adverse to the State.’” Hartsfield, 681 N.W.2d at 630 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Vincik, 398 N.W.2d 788, 795 (Iowa 1987)).

2021Discussion A. Spoliation Instruction “A spoliation instruction is ‘a direction to the jury that it [may] infer from the State’s failure to preserve [evidence] that the evidence would have been adverse to the State.’” State v. Hartsfield, 681 N.W.2d 626, 630 (Iowa 2004) (quoting State v. Vinick, 398 N.W.2d 788, 795 (Iowa 1987)).

2018If substantial evidence has been introduced on each element, then, as we said in State v. Ueding, 400 N.W.2d 550, 552 (Iowa 1987) a spoliation instruction “should be given”.

2004If substantial evidence has been introduced on each element, then, as we said in State v. Ueding, 400 N.W.2d 550, 552 (Iowa 1987), a spoliation instruction “should be given.” Our conclusion that spoliation instructions should be given when supported by the record is particularly appropriate given the potential for constitutional due process ■ implications arising from the State’s intentional destruction of evidence.

2021The court ultimately explained that review of a district court’s refusal to provide a spoliation instruction is for abuse of discretion “because that instruction acts as a discovery sanction and discovery sanctions are discretionary.” Id.

2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016).

2014Our supreme court addressed a similar claim in State v. Bowers, 661 N.W.2d 536 (Iowa 2003), where the defendant “requested a spoliation instruction based on the failure to tape-record his interrogation.” The Bowers court stated: “We have not been made aware of any requirement that law enforcement officers tape-record their interviews, and a failure to do so may in no way be equated with the destruction of evidence.” 661 N.W.2d at 543 .

2014Our supreme court addressed a similar claim in State v. Bowers, 661 N.W.2d 536 (Iowa 2003), where the defendant “requested a spoliation instruction based on the failure to tape-record his interrogation.” The Bowers court stated: “We have not been made aware of any requirement that law enforcement officers tape-record their interviews, and a failure to do so may in no way be equated with the destruction of evidence.” 661 N.W.2d at 543 .

2014See State v. Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 821 (Iowa 1997).

2014See State v. Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 821 (Iowa 1997).

2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016).

2016Id. (citing State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 336 (Iowa 1979) (holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a spoliation instruction as there was no evidence of an intent to destroy evidence)).

2015Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d at 334 .

2004See State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775, 784 (Iowa 1999); State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Iowa 1992).

2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016).

2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016).

2004Cf. State v. Metz, 636 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Iowa 2001) (holding improper impeachment was not harmless error when contradicted facts went to the core of the defendant’s defense); State v. Long, 628 N.W.2d 440, 447 (Iowa 2001) (holding erroneous admission of hearsay statements was prejudicial where statements went to the heart of the defendant’s only defense).

2004Cf. Ceaser, 585 N.W.2d at 193 (stating trial court must instruct on an affirmative defense if substantial evidence exists showing that the defense applies).

2004Cf. State v. Metz, 636 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Iowa 2001) (holding improper impeachment was not harmless error when contradicted facts went to the core of the defendant’s defense); State v. Long, 628 N.W.2d 440, 447 (Iowa 2001) (holding erroneous admission of hearsay statements was prejudicial where statements went to the heart of the defendant’s only defense).

2004See State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775, 784 (Iowa 1999); State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Iowa 1992).