missing evidence instruction in Maryland

2024In Patterson, we applied these principles when considering a defendant’s request for a missing evidence instruction that would have permitted the jury to infer that, had the missing evidence been produced at trial, it would have been unfavorable to the State. 356 Md. at 682 .

2014The Court of Appeals has explained that “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion.” Id.

2016Relying on Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360 , 10 A.3d 184 (2010), Mr. Gupta next contends that the circuit court erred when it denied his request for a missing evidence instruction.

2016Relying on Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360 , 10 A.3d 184 (2010), Mr. Gupta next contends that the circuit court erred when it denied his request for a missing evidence instruction.

2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004).

2006But cf. Patterson v. State, supra, 356 Md. at 684 , 741 A.2d 1119 (because Rule 4-325(c) is inapplicable to factual matters, “regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given; the failure to give such an instruction is neither error nor an abuse of discretion”); Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 374 , 768 A.2d 688 (2001) (quoting Patterson with approval); Imes v. State, 158 Md.App. 176 , 193 n. 9, 855 A.2d 381 (“A trial judge is not required to give an instruction with respect to evidentiary inferences.”), cert. denied, 384 Md. 158 , 862 A.2d 994 (2004).

2012See United States v. Rose, 104 F.3d 1408, 1417 (1st Cir.1997) (missing evidence instruction properly denied where, rather than failing to provide available evidence, the government merely failed to collect fingerprint evidence).

1999See United States v. Rose, 104 F.3d 1408, 1417 (1st Cir.) (holding there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in ruling that the failure to examine an ammunition clip found on defendant’s person did not justify a missing evidence instruction), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1258 , 117 S.Ct. 2424 , 138 L.Ed.2d 187 (1997); Doe v. Johnson, 52 F.3d 1448 , 1460 (7th Cir.1995) (noting, under Illinois law, that “whether to use the missing witness/evidence instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”); Higgins v. Martin Marietta Corp., 752 F.2d 492, 496 (10th Cir.1985) (“The refusa

2010See also State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452 , 702 P.2d 681, 690 (1985) (citing State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 393 P.2d 274, 276 (1964) (under Arizona state evidence law, a defendant is entitled to a missing evidence instruction when (1) “the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence having a tendency to exonerate him,” and (2) “this failure resulted in prejudice.”)).

2010See also State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452 , 702 P.2d 681, 690 (1985) (citing State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 393 P.2d 274, 276 (1964) (under Arizona state evidence law, a defendant is entitled to a missing evidence instruction when (1) “the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence having a tendency to exonerate him,” and (2) “this failure resulted in prejudice.”)).

2010See, e.g., Hammond, 569 A.2d 81, 90 (requiring a missing evidence jury instruction without a showing of bad faith); Fletcher v. Anchorage, 650 P.2d 417, 418 (Alaska Ct.App.1982) (when evidence is “lost or destroyed in good faith,” a court may decide to “instruct the jury to assume that the [missing] evidence would be favorable to the defendant.”) Even some states that adhere to Youngblood’s bad faith requirement allow or encourage missing evidence instructions.

2010See also State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452 , 702 P.2d 681, 690 (1985) (citing State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 393 P.2d 274, 276 (1964) (under Arizona state evidence law, a defendant is entitled to a missing evidence instruction when (1) “the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence having a tendency to exonerate him,” and (2) “this failure resulted in prejudice.”)).

2010See also State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452 , 702 P.2d 681, 690 (1985) (citing State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 393 P.2d 274, 276 (1964) (under Arizona state evidence law, a defendant is entitled to a missing evidence instruction when (1) “the state failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence having a tendency to exonerate him,” and (2) “this failure resulted in prejudice.”)).

2010See, e.g., Hammond, 569 A.2d 81, 90 (requiring a missing evidence jury instruction without a showing of bad faith); Fletcher v. Anchorage, 650 P.2d 417, 418 (Alaska Ct.App.1982) (when evidence is “lost or destroyed in good faith,” a court may decide to “instruct the jury to assume that the [missing] evidence would be favorable to the defendant.”) Even some states that adhere to Youngblood’s bad faith requirement allow or encourage missing evidence instructions.

2010See State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502 , 844 P.2d 1152, 1157 (1993) (on remand from Supreme Court, reaffirming “bad faith” standard but noting that “an instruction is adequate where the state destroys, loses or fails to preserve evidence[.]”); Collins v. Commonwealth, 951 S.W.2d 569 (Ky. 1997) (following Youngblood but stating that a “factor of *378 critical importance to this case is the missing evidence instruction that was provided [through which] any uncertainty as to what the [missing evidence] might have proved was turned to [defendant’s] advantage.”) In these cases, we see an emerging c

2010See State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502 , 844 P.2d 1152, 1157 (1993) (on remand from Supreme Court, reaffirming “bad faith” standard but noting that “an instruction is adequate where the state destroys, loses or fails to preserve evidence[.]”); Collins v. Commonwealth, 951 S.W.2d 569 (Ky. 1997) (following Youngblood but stating that a “factor of *378 critical importance to this case is the missing evidence instruction that was provided [through which] any uncertainty as to what the [missing evidence] might have proved was turned to [defendant’s] advantage.”) In these cases, we see an emerging c

2010See also Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357 , *543 373-74, 768 A.2d 688, 697 (2001); Bereano v. State Ethics Comm’n, supra, 403 Md. at 753-54 , 944 A.2d at 559-60 (2008).

2010See also Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357 , *543 373-74, 768 A.2d 688, 697 (2001); Bereano v. State Ethics Comm’n, supra, 403 Md. at 753-54 , 944 A.2d at 559-60 (2008).

2008Although many courts that recently addressed the issue, including this Court in Patterson, 356 Md. 677, 741 A.2d 1119 , sought to reduce the scope and application of the missing witness or missing evidence inference, the dissent exerts considerable effort to sustain the Commission’s application of the inference in an administrative context. 9 Patterson, 356 *754 Md. at 688, 741 A.2d at 1124-25 (“We now further refine the issue in the case sub judice by holding that, regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given----”); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9

2008Although many courts that recently addressed the issue, including this Court in Patterson, 356 Md. 677, 741 A.2d 1119 , sought to reduce the scope and application of the missing witness or missing evidence inference, the dissent exerts considerable effort to sustain the Commission’s application of the inference in an administrative context. 9 Patterson, 356 *754 Md. at 688, 741 A.2d at 1124-25 (“We now further refine the issue in the case sub judice by holding that, regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given----”); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9

2008Although many courts that recently addressed the issue, including this Court in Patterson, 356 Md. 677, 741 A.2d 1119 , sought to reduce the scope and application of the missing witness or missing evidence inference, the dissent exerts considerable effort to sustain the Commission’s application of the inference in an administrative context. 9 Patterson, 356 *754 Md. at 688, 741 A.2d at 1124-25 (“We now further refine the issue in the case sub judice by holding that, regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given----”); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9

2008Although many courts that recently addressed the issue, including this Court in Patterson, 356 Md. 677, 741 A.2d 1119 , sought to reduce the scope and application of the missing witness or missing evidence inference, the dissent exerts considerable effort to sustain the Commission’s application of the inference in an administrative context. 9 Patterson, 356 *754 Md. at 688, 741 A.2d at 1124-25 (“We now further refine the issue in the case sub judice by holding that, regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given----”); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9

2008Although many courts that recently addressed the issue, including this Court in Patterson, 356 Md. 677, 741 A.2d 1119 , sought to reduce the scope and application of the missing witness or missing evidence inference, the dissent exerts considerable effort to sustain the Commission’s application of the inference in an administrative context. 9 Patterson, 356 *754 Md. at 688, 741 A.2d at 1124-25 (“We now further refine the issue in the case sub judice by holding that, regardless of the evidence, a missing evidence instruction generally need not be given----”); Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 9

1999See Willits, 96 Ariz. at 188 , 393 P.2d at 277 (decided prior to Youngblood and basing its decision on the Arizona Constitution); Lolly, 611 A.2d at 959-60 (requiring a missing evidence instruction under the Delaware Constitution); Osakalumi, 194 W.Va. at 765 , 461 S.E.2d at 511 (“Disposition of appellant’s federal due process rights, under Arizona v. Youngblood, does not necessarily resolve his right of due process under [the] West Virginia Constitution.”).