COA-III released an opinion on Oct. 15, 2026, in State v. Lorenzo – The opinion is unpublished, which isn’t surprising since the topic is pretty ordinary, but this is a case which illustrates a decent example of the operation of the Spoilage Doctrine in a typical Youngblood claim.  So I would keep this one in your back pocket.  Slip opinion -> 410901_unp.pdf

D is arrested for attempt to elude LEOs – during the high-speed pursuit, D was driving his BMW on the shoulder to pass vehicles.  LEOs deployed spike strips causing the tires to “disintegrate” but D persevered and continued to drive on his rims reaching speeds of 105 mph.  D eventually lost control of the BMW and wrecked on an embankment.  D went rabbit but didn’t make it too far before he was apprehended.  A tow company took custody of the BMW and towed it to their lot.

During the pendency of the case, D filed a motion compelling the tow company to preserve the BMW and filed a motion to permit an independent forensic mechanical inspection.  Shortly thereafter, the State and the D learned that the tow company had previously destroyed the BMW and all of D’s personalty contained therein (all prior to these motions being filed).  D was convicted at trial and appealed asserting a claim under State v. Wittenbarger and due process under art. I, sec. 3.  This is the WA analog to a Youngblood claim.

A Youngblood claim specifies that evidence spoilage results in a due process violation where the State fails to preserve, 1) material, exculpatory evidence; OR where the State fails to preserve 1) “potentially useful” evidence and does so in 2) bad faith.  Here, the State conceded that the BMW was “potentially useful” evidence but D was unable to provide evidence of “specific knowledge of the evidence’s exculpatory value at the time of destruction” (bad faith).  Conviction upheld.

I used to get these all the time.  If you have a good faith judge, this is often a loser of an argument mainly because exhibiting “bad faith” is a pretty high bar.  If you ever see these in muni or district court, they’ll usually fail on both standards – defense will never be able to demonstrate that the evidence was material and exculpatory and will always present the case that it was “potentially useful”, and they’ll never be able to show bad faith on the part of the government (at best, they can show negligence…which doesn’t cut the mustard unless the evidence is material and exculpatory).