State v. Ralston

When making a post-trial claim of prejudice, the defendant must show “a more concrete likelihood” that there was “actual prejudice” that affected the preparation for the defense. State v. Mende, 304 OR 18, 22-23 (1987).

Defendant appealed a conviction for DUII after the video from his booking was destroyed before he could request a copy of it. Defendant assigned error to the State’s reliance on his guilty plea as proof that Defendant did not consider the booking video exculpatory for his case. Defendant argued he met his threshold for the reasonable possibility of prejudice and also the delay in proceedings had caused the loss of the booking video. In response, the State argued Defendant failed to prove that the booking video was material to his defense. When making a post-trial claim of prejudice, the defendant must show “a more concrete likelihood” that there was “actual prejudice” that affected the preparation for the defense. State v. Mende, 304 OR 18, 22-23 (1987). The Court reasoned that Defendant’s guilty plea was not enough to show that the booking video was not prejudicial to the defense. Instead, the Court reasoned that the prejudice must be connected to the unreasonable delay. Here, Defendant could not show that delay was the cause of the loss of the booking video because Defendant did not take the opportunity to request the booking video before it was destroyed. Affirmed.