Due process; Destruction of evidence; Arizona v Youngblood; Choice of counsel; United States v Gonzalez-Lopez; Judicial misconduct; Impartiality; People v Stevens; Ineffective assistance; People v Yeager; CCW, felony-firearm, & body armor possession by a felon; Great weight of the evidence; People v Nimeth

The court held (1) that defendant was not denied due process by the destruction of the booking-room recording, (2) that the trial court did not violate his right to counsel of choice or pierce the veil of judicial impartiality, (3) that he did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) that his firearm convictions were not against the great weight of the evidence. Defendant was stopped twice while driving a Jeep, first for driving without headlights and then, after officers learned the vehicle was reported stolen, was arrested and found to have a loaded handgun in the center console and body armor in the trunk. At trial, he admitted knowing the body armor was in the vehicle but denied knowing about the gun, and he claimed his wife owned it. On appeal, the court held that the destruction of the recording from the police station did not violate due process because he failed to show that it was exculpatory or destroyed in bad faith. It explained that the erased recording would have conveyed only the same denial of knowledge that the jury already heard through defendant’s testimony and the dashcam recording, and that routine overwriting after seven days was not bad faith. The court next held that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying his day-of-trial request to replace counsel, given that he had raised no earlier concerns despite numerous pretrial hearings and had requested the trial date himself. It also held that a single instance in which the trial judge helped the prosecutor rephrase a question did not create the appearance of advocacy or partiality, especially because the judge sustained many defense objections and instructed the jury to disregard any judicial opinions. Finally, the court held that the ineffective-assistance claims failed on the existing record and that the jury was entitled to reject his denial of knowledge and find possession from the gun’s location in the center console within his reach. Affirmed.