2009AP1684-CR State v. Huggett

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Exculpatory evidence; due process; dismissal

Where the state failed to preserve exculpatory evidence – threatening voice mails from the victim to the defendant – dismissal is an appropriate remedy.
“This is a rather unusual case in that, while the physical evidence was solely within the State’s possession, the concomitant electronic evidence was stored elsewhere and could have been accessed by both the State and the defense. Given the facts of this case, however, it was reasonable for Huggett to expect that the State would preserve the voicemail recordings. The sheriff’s department was immediately aware of the apparently exculpatory value of the evidence and confiscated the cell phones as part of its investigation. It knew, or should have known, that the voice recordings would be automatically deleted by the cell phone provider at some point in time—this is common knowledge. Additionally, the department was in a better position to preserve the evidence given its collective investigatory experience and access to necessary technical equipment.”
“By creating an expectation of preservation, the State became responsible for ensuring that it occurred. Huggett was not charged with any crime until nearly four months after the incident—long after the apparently exculpatory evidence had been destroyed. It would be fundamentally unfair for the State to induce reliance and then place the responsibility on Huggett for failing to seek and preserve the evidence prior to ever being charged.”
Affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP1684-CR State v. Huggett

Dist. III, Burnett County, Babbitt, J., Hoover, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Freimuth, James M., Madison; Norine, William L., Siren; For Respondent: Mastantuono, Craig A., Milwaukee