This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of tampering with evidence after allegedly placing a bottle containing yellow liquid in her vagina to prevent a probation violation. The probation officer testified that the Defendant admitted to attempting to tamper with the urine sample. The Defendant later provided a sample of her own urine for testing (paras 1, 6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: Convicted the Defendant of tampering with evidence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on attempted tampering as a lesser included offense and by denying sanctions against the State for failing to preserve evidence (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's actions constituted completed tampering and that the evidence was immaterial to the case (paras 4, 15).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in denying a jury instruction on attempted tampering as a lesser included offense.
- Whether the district court erred in denying sanctions against the State for failing to preserve evidence.
Disposition
- The conviction for tampering with evidence was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 17).
Reasons
Per Henderson J. (Hanisee and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
The court found that the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on attempted tampering as a lesser included offense. The three-prong test from State v. Meadors was satisfied: the Defendant could not have committed tampering without attempting it, there was sufficient evidence for attempted tampering, and the elements distinguishing the offenses were in dispute (paras 3-8). The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss based on the State's failure to preserve evidence, as the evidence was immaterial to the Defendant's defense (paras 10-15). The cumulative error argument was not addressed due to the reversal and remand for a new trial (para 16).