People v. Jardin, 88 N.Y.2d 956 (1996)

The state does not violate a defendant’s due process rights by failing to gather and preserve evidence for DNA testing unless the evidence was material and possessed an exculpatory value that was evident before its destruction, loss, or failure to preserve, and the defendant was unable to obtain comparable evidence by reasonable means.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for first-degree rape, rejecting his claim that the prosecution’s failure to gather and preserve a semen sample for DNA testing violated his due process rights. The complainant testified to forcible penetration, while the defendant admitted to consensual oral sex but denied intercourse. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the potential DNA evidence was material and possessed exculpatory value before the failure to preserve it, and that he could not obtain comparable evidence. Because identification was never an issue, and the People did not introduce DNA evidence, no due process violation occurred.

Facts

The complainant, familiar with the 60-year-old defendant, visited his apartment late at night to assist him with homework on June 27, 1990. After helping him, she attempted to leave, but the defendant allegedly forced her to engage in sexual intercourse. A neighbor, witnessing part of the incident through a window, reported a possible rape to the police, who arrived while the complainant was still in the apartment. Subsequent testing confirmed the presence of sperm in the complainant’s vagina, but the quantity was insufficient for DNA testing.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of first-degree rape following a jury trial. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution’s failure to gather and adequately preserve a sample of semen for DNA testing violated his due process rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the prosecution’s failure to gather and adequately preserve a sample of semen sufficient for DNA testing violated the defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.

Holding

No, because the defendant failed to demonstrate that the potential evidence was material and possessed exculpatory value before its destruction, loss, or failure to preserve, and that the defendant was unable to obtain comparable evidence by reasonable means.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals applied the standard articulated in California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) and People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987), which requires a defendant to demonstrate that the potential evidence was material, meaning it possessed an exculpatory value evident before its destruction, loss, or failure to preserve. The court emphasized that the defendant also needed to show he could not obtain comparable evidence by reasonable means. The court noted that identification was never an issue in the case, and the People did not offer any DNA evidence. The court found that the defendant failed to meet the burden of showing the semen sample had exculpatory value before its failure to be preserved. As such, the lower courts did not err by denying a hearing and precluding cross-examination on the failure to conduct DNA testing. The decision highlights the importance of establishing the materiality and exculpatory nature of unpreserved evidence to support a due process claim. The Court referenced California v Trombetta, 467 US 479, 489; People v Alvarez, 70 NY2d 375.