The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
99-4609•United States of America v. William Aaron Hill
99-4609Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 16, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-4609
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM AARON HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CR-99-96)
Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Lieberman, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen
F. Fahey, United States Attorney, David W. Jensen, Special As-
sistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
William Aaron Hill appeals his convictions for being a pris-
oner in possession of a shank and assault with a dangerous weapon.
On appeal, he alleges that his due process rights were violated and
that his indictment should have been dismissed because the Gov-
ernment destroyed a shank found after the attack. He also alleges
that his convictions were not supported by the evidence adduced at
trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, although the evidence revealed that the Government in-
tentionally destroyed a shank that may have been the murder weapon,
Hill failed to establish that such destruction was made in bad
faith or that the shank’s exculpatory value was apparent at the
time of destruction. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57-58
(1988); California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984). Second,
viewing the evidence as we must, we find that the evidence was
sufficient to support Hill’s convictions. See Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Accordingly, we affirm Hill’s convictions. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.