STATE OF LOUISIANA i 14™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU JOFY JULIAN : STATEOF LOUISIANA FILED: i DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT JUDGEMENT The Court, after reconsidering and rescinding its initial raling on November 8, 2019 denying the defendant's Motion for Discovery Sanctions Pursuant to LSA C. Cr. P. Art.729.5 (A) and upon further review, now grants that motion. ‘This Court has, on multiple occasions, expressed its concern regarding the intentional destruction of mumerous video/audio recordings of witness interviews and other crime scene activity in this homicide investigation which undeniably contained material, relevant, if not critical evidence, without a satisfactory explanation. On one occasion, the Court went so far as to say thar it found the intentional destruction of the subject recordings deeply troubling, ‘The State relies primarily on State v. Bobo, 77 So. 34 1, 46,225 (LA. App. 2 Cir. 6/8/11) in nging this Court to deny the defendant's motion, This case is clearly distinguishable from Bobo where a reasonable and adequate explanation was given as to why the recordings in that case were not tagged as evidence and were therefore intentionally destroyed. In this case no explanation, whatsoever, was given as to why these recordings were not labeled as evidence and preserved. ‘The intentional destruction of these recordings was done in derogation of long: standing departmental policy. The officers investigating this alleged homicide were given several inconsistent statements from its most critical witness during recorded interviews at the crime scene and at the Lake Charles Police Department. When the events upon which this proecution is based began to unfold, only three people were present - the decedent, the defendant and State's key witness, Ms. Tiffany Robinson, ‘They were all within feet of each other when whatever happened, happened.“The defendant left the scene immediately after the shooting, The Lake Charles police responded within minutes and began interviewing Ms. Robinson and other witnesses while equipped with sophisticated recording devices. Their investigation quickly revealed at the scene, and a short time later at the police station, that Ms. Robinson gave several recorded inconsistent statements, some of which were exculpatory. Ms. Robinson's statements were intemally inconsistent ind possibly inconsistent with the recorded statements of others. It is astounding that these recordings were not preserved. Ie would be inconceivable for anyone to seriously argue that these tapes did not contain valuable information favorable to the defendant. The investigating officers knew that; and dlespite departmental policy, failed to properly tag what was the best evidence of those conversations, No viable explanation was given as to why that was not done. Therefore, the sequested remedy is granted and is fitting in this case. ‘THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Lake Charles, Louisiana on this 20 day of November, 2019. A. HONORABLE JUDGE