Lolly v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
WALSH, Justice:
In this appeal from the Superior Court we again confront the question of the evi-dentiary effect of the State’s failure to collect and/or retain allegedly exculpatory evidence. The State argues that we should abandon the analysis crafted by our rulings in Deberry v. State, Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 744 (1983) and Hammond v. State, Del.Supr., 569 A.2d 81 (1989) in favor of a standard which turns on the good faith of the police, as exemplified in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988). We reaffirm our adherence to the more exacting standard based on…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Getz v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
- Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1987
- Deberry v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1983
- Hammond v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- McCarty v. GilchristCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
- State v. SteffesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. EngesserSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
- Pena v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2005
- Patterson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.