Crone, J.
….
Seal contends that the State’s failure to preserve the audio recordings of his [molestation victims’] interviews in the patrol car immediately following their 911 call and their follow-up interviews a week later violated his federal and state constitutional rights. [Footnote omitted.] In essence, Seal’s argument is that the State failed to preserve evidence, which is generally analyzed as a due process issue.
….
With regard to the circumstances of this case, two facts are significant. First, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that the police record interviews with victims. [Footnote omitted.] Second, the State attempted to record the audio of the interviews, and Seal does not contend, nor is there any evidence, that the State intentionally sabotaged or destroyed the audio recordings. Therefore, even if we assumed that the content of the interviews contained potentially useful evidence, there would be no due process violation because Seal cannot show bad faith.
However, Seal contends that it does not matter whether the State acted in good faith or bad faith because the interviews contained materially exculpatory evidence. According to Seal, the girls had many reasons to fabricate their story and his “counsel could have shown the jury the manner in which [the girls] were not telling the truth by using DVDs in court; and the jury could have judged for itself whether to believe whether the victims’ explanations given at trial were contrived or appeared reasonable.” [Record citation omitted.] The interviews were summarized in the police reports, and Seal directs to no statements that tended to establish his innocence. The interviews do not strike us as materially exculpatory evidence but rather as impeachment evidence.
We conclude that Seal’s due process rights were not violated by the State’s failure to preserve the audio recordings of the victims’ interviews. To the extent that Seal asserts that his rights to effectively cross-examine the witnesses and to present a defense were violated, we note again that the interviews were summarized, both girls testified, and Seal fails to explain how the summaries were inadequate to assist him in cross-examining the girls. Although he sets forth numerous facts that he argues were relevant to the girls’ motives to fabricate, he was not limited in his scope of cross-examining the girls with regard to those facts. In short, we find no federal or state constitutional violations in this regard.
….
Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.