MA · jury_instructions
Instruction 3.880, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court
Lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence
LOST OR DESTROYED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
This instruction may be given as one possible judicial remedy in cases where
the defendant has established a “reasonable possibility, based on concrete
evidence" that lost or destroyed evidence would have been favorable to the
defendant. See Commonwealth v. Neal, 392 Mass. 1, 12 (1984). The judge
then must weigh “the Commonwealth’s culpability, the materiality of the
evidence, and the prejudice to the defendant” in determining what remedy is
appropriate. Commonwealth v. Williams, 455 Mass. 706, 718 (2010).
You have heard testimony that [item of evidence] has been (lost)
(destroyed) in this case.
You may infer that, if the evidence had been preserved, it would
have been favorable to the defendant. You are not compelled to make
this inference, but you may, after considering all of the facts and
circumstances you have heard about the (loss) (destruction) of this
evidence.
History
Instruction 3.880, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court (June 2023). Published by the Administrative Office of the District Court, District Court Department of the Trial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on www.mass.gov. © 1988-2009 Administrative Office of the District Court; reproduced under its title-page permission ("You may freely reproduce or copy this work if you identify its source and any changes made to the original work"). Source: https://www.mass.gov/doc/3880-lost-or-destroyed-exculpatory-evidence/download. Changes made: the text is extracted from the published PDF (verified by three extraction engines); the running headers, page numbers and line layout are removed, and a closing NOTES section, where printed, is carried as the note.
Provenance
- Source
- mass.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-25
- Edition
- 2026-09-25
- Content hash
ed64d58ce74b337d44654f26870f24a1bd1fbf34e5bacd411d9404b3e2bb3a73
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.