State v. DeJesus

Associate Chief Justice Lee,

concurring in part and concurring the judgment:

¶ 56 In this case, as in State v. Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 44, 162 P.3d 1106, the court holds that the State has an obligation to preserve evidence that is reasonably likely to affect the outcome of trial. Further echoing Tiedemann, the majority next concludes that the decision on an appropriate remedy for a violation of the duty of preservation depends on a “balance” of two factors—“the culpability of the state and the prejudice to the defendant.” Supra ¶27. And finally, applying these standards, the court concludes…