Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Steffesgreen2 sentences2026State v. Steffes, 500 N.W.2d 608, 613 (N.D. 1993). [¶8] In addition, when the State fails to preserve evidence that was at one point within the State’s possession, a defendant must present evidence of bad faith, meaning the State “deliberately destroyed the evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information[.]” Steffes, 500 N.W.2d at 613 . [¶9] Eggleston did not present any proof that the video recording would have been exculpatory; he merely speculates that it might have been. 2026State v. Steffes, 500 N.W.2d 608, 613 (N.D. 1993). [¶8] In addition, when the State fails to preserve evidence that was at one point within the State’s possession, a defendant must present evidence of bad faith, meaning the State “deliberately destroyed the evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information[.]” Steffes, 500 N.W.2d at 613 . [¶9] Eggleston did not present any proof that the video recording would have been exculpatory; he merely speculates that it might have been. | 4 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ostby
neutral
2 sentences2020“Bad faith, as used in cases involving destroyed evidence or statements, means that the state deliberately destroyed the evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information; that is, that the evidence was destroyed by, or at the direction of, a state agent 6 who intended to thwart the defense.” State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180, ¶ 15 , 853 N.W.2d 556 (quoting Steffes, at 613). 2020“Bad faith, as used in cases involving destroyed evidence or statements, means that the state deliberately destroyed the evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information; that is, that the evidence was destroyed by, or at the direction of, a state agent 6 who intended to thwart the defense.” State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180, ¶ 15 , 853 N.W.2d 556 (quoting Steffes, at 613). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Handtmann
green
2 sentences2013See also State v. Steffes , 500 N.W.2d 608, 613 (N.D. 1993) (“Bad faith, as used in cases involving destroyed evidence or statements, means that the state deliberately destroyed the evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information; that is, that the evidence was destroyed by, or at the direction of, a state agent who intended to thwart the defense.”). [¶88] The majority cites State v. Johnson , 301 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1981) and State v. Handtmann , 437 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 1989) in support of its holding. 2013See also State v. Steffes, 500 N.W.2d 608, 618 (N.D.1993) (“Bad faith, as used in cases involving destroyed evidence or statements, means that the state deliberately destroyed the evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information; that is, that the evidence was destroyed by, or at the direction of, a state agent who intended to thwart the defense.”). [¶ 88] The majority cites State v. Johnson, 801 N.W.2d 625 (N.D.1981) and State v. Handtmann, 437 N.W.2d 830 (N.D.1989) in support of its holding. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2013See also State v. Steffes , 500 N.W.2d 608, 613 (N.D. 1993) (“Bad faith, as used in cases involving destroyed evidence or statements, means that the state deliberately destroyed the evidence with the intent to deprive the defense of information; that is, that the evidence was destroyed by, or at the direction of, a state agent who intended to thwart the defense.”). [¶88] The majority cites State v. Johnson , 301 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1981) and State v. Handtmann , 437 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 1989) in support of its holding. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Baldwin
green
2 sentences1993State v. Baldwin, 224 Conn. 347 , 618 A.2d 513 (1993). 1993State v. Baldwin, 224 Conn. 347 , 618 A.2d 513 (1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.