Supreme Court of Iowa· 6/16/2004

State v. Hartsfield

Citations

681 N.W.2d 626
2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 173
2004 WL 1336238

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding no spoliation instruction needed to be given, as the defendant failed to establish the State intentionally destroyed video surveillance
concluding there was substantial evidence to support the instruction and the district court erred in failing to give the requested instruction
recognizing “evidence destroyed under a neutral record destruction policy is not considered intentionally destroyed so as to justify a spoliation instruction”
concluding there was substantial evidence to support the instruction and the district court erred in failing to give the requested instruction
holding, without addressing bad faith, that “a defendant can be entitled to a spoliation instruction without showing that a refusal to give the instruction would be an infringement of his right to due process”
indicating, in order for destruction to be intentional, factfinder must be able to conclude State's actions were an admission evidence was unfavorable to its case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ternus

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Hartsfield

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.