Due process; Police failure to investigate the case via DNA & fingerprint evidence; Failure to retain the officers’ body-camera footage of the traffic stop & defendant’s arrest; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request an adverse-inference jury instruction as to the “missing” body-camera, DNA, & fingerprint evidence; Sufficiency of the evidence; “Mere presence”; Constructive possession of a firearm

The court held that defendant-Eason was not denied his constitutional right to due process as to the police and prosecutor’s preservation of evidence. Also, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that he constructively possessed the firearm. He “was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by the police. A loaded firearm was found in the backseat of the vehicle.” A corrections officer at the jail later “recovered a bullet in his pocket that matched the bullets recovered from the firearm.” He was convicted of carrying a pistol in a vehicle without a concealed pistol license, FIP of a firearm and ammunition, and felony-firearm, third offense. On appeal, he challenged “the failure of the police and prosecutor to preserve body-camera footage of the traffic stop and to conduct DNA and fingerprint testing of the firearm.” The court noted that the record showed “Eason himself could have requested the footage, but he failed to do so.” Further, the court “has held that the destruction of evidence in accordance with department policy does not establish bad faith.” It found here that “the routine destruction of the body-camera footage in accordance with department policy did not constitute a due-process violation.” As to his claim related to DNA and fingerprint evidence, the record failed “to establish bad faith, misconduct, or the suppression of evidence.” As to fingerprint evidence, Eason asserted that Detective A “testified that ‘no fingerprint evidence was sought.’” But based on A’s testimony, it appeared “that the gun was tested for fingerprint evidence, but no fingerprints were recovered. In any event, the police were not required to the test the gun for fingerprints absent intentional misconduct, bad faith, or the suppression of evidence, which the record fails to establish.” The court also held that “Eason was not entitled to an adverse-inference instruction” as to the allegedly missing evidence “even if his attorney would have requested one. As such, his attorney’s representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.” Finally, the court held that “the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Eason constructively possessed the firearm. During the traffic stop, Eason told [Officer P] that he and [the driver of the vehicle] did not have anything in the vehicle, and he did not have anything on him, but [P] observed Eason ‘grabbing’ near his waistband and adjusting his clothing. [P] looked in the backseat and saw a pistol sitting in plain view on top of the rear seat. A magazine removed from the firearm was capable of holding 13 bullets, but only 12 bullets were in the magazine. Officer [D] found one bullet in the pocket of Eason’s shorts when [D] searched Eason upon his entry to the jail. The bullet found in Eason’s pocket was the same make and caliber and had the same color casing as the bullets in the magazine and chamber of the pistol.” Affirmed.