History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner







2.3-4 Spoliation of Evidence

New March 23, 2012

The <name of party claiming spoliation> claims that <name of party> intentionally  (damaged/lost/destroyed) the following relevant evidence: <describe evidence>.  Our law allows you to draw an adverse inference, that is, that the evidence would have been unfavorable to <name of party>, <name of party claiming spoliation> must prove that:

  1. the evidence was (damaged/lost/destroyed) at a time when <name of party> was on notice of a duty to preserve it;
  2. the (loss/damage/destruction) was intentional. This does not mean that there must have been an intent to perpetrate a fraud, but rather, that the evidence had been disposed of intentionally and not merely destroyed inadvertently; and
  3. <Name of party claiming spoliation> used due diligence to have the evidence preserved or produced.

You are not required to draw the inference that the (damaged/lost/destroyed) evidence would be unfavorable to <name of party>, but you may do so if you are satisfied that these conditions have been met.


Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769, 778-80 (1996); Paylan v. St. Mary's Hospital Corp., 118 Conn. App. 258, 262-66 (2009).


Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQs | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2016, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch