## Facts

- George M. Hammond, III, age 18, was involved in a single-car crash around 5:00 a.m. on July 25, 1986; the car left the roadway and struck a townhouse foundation under construction.
- Two passengers, Keith Douglas Moore and Leon Buddy Carter, died as a result of the crash.
- Officer William Wayne Walls arrived early at the scene and observed Hammond in the driver’s seat with his casted right leg entangled between the accelerator and brake pedals; Moore was positioned in the front-seat area with his head on Hammond’s chest; Carter was slumped in the left rear seat.
- All three occupants were taken to Kent General Hospital; an emergency-room physician ordered diagnostic testing, including a blood draw for alcohol analysis.
- A hospital technician drew Hammond’s blood and the hospital laboratory analyzed a serum sample using a Du Pont “aca” Discrete Clinical Analyzer.
- At trial, Hammond asserted he was not driving and argued that police mishandled or failed to preserve evidence (including the vehicle) that could have supported his defense; he also challenged the admissibility of the blood-alcohol results and statements he made to Officer Walls at the hospital.

## Issues

1. Whether due process was violated by police failure to gather and preserve allegedly material evidence (including the vehicle) for defense use.
2. Whether the blood-alcohol test results were improperly admitted for lack of adequate foundation establishing reliability of the Du Pont aca analyzer and testing procedures.
3. Whether Hammond’s hospital statements to Officer Walls were obtained through custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and therefore should have been suppressed.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court judgments and Hammond’s convictions for two counts of first-degree vehicular homicide.
- The court held no due-process violation occurred from the police failure to preserve and test the vehicle before its release because any exculpatory value was speculative and there was no showing of bad faith.
- The court held the blood-alcohol test results were properly admitted because the State provided sufficient foundational evidence of routine hospital procedures, handling, and the analyzer’s operation; objections went to weight rather than admissibility.
- The court held Hammond’s statements at the hospital were admissible because the officer’s limited questioning in the medical setting was not custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.

## Legal Principles

- Failure to preserve evidence violates due process only when the evidence is materially exculpatory, or when potentially useful evidence is lost or destroyed in bad faith; negligence alone is insufficient.
- Scientific test results may be admitted when the proponent establishes an adequate foundation through testimony about routine procedures, handling, and instrument operation; absent a concrete showing of unreliability, challenges typically affect evidentiary weight, not admissibility.
- Miranda safeguards apply to custodial interrogation; brief, investigatory questioning in a hospital setting, without restraints associated with arrest or a coercive interrogation environment, may be non-custodial.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Hammond’s vehicular homicide convictions, concluding that the unpreserved vehicle evidence was only potentially useful without proof of bad faith, the hospital blood-alcohol testing was supported by a sufficient reliability foundation, and the hospital questioning did not amount to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.


Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81 (Del. 1989)