Were the petitioner's due process rights violated when the Pierce County Sheriff's Department caused the loss and destruction of the vehicle the petitioner was driving at the time of the shooting incident, which had visible bullet holes in the driver's side door frame and therefore clearly possessed potentially exculpatory evidence that could have supported the petitioner's self-defense claim?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . . 1. Were ReNA\oners Ave process rights violated when the Pierce Counhy Sherhls Degarrenent cavsed Nhe 055 and destruction of the . Faaker@vevibenct | of awe vehicle Derblonev was driving ot the time of he Shecting Incident, whieh hak visible be\lef weles tn the . in She drivers side door frame and dheve fore clearly, posse ssa marerra\ly etolprrory evidence Nhat supported Pedttiortr’s self defense clam’ eS WA rhe Pierce . Coury Checifhs Deparment ack 1 Yaad Fasth when | “ cavae d AW \oss ant destruck oa of Ve ‘veltcle Dedihyoner! was 7 dviving as We Xime’ of Yre shooting \ncihenk , which had visiede | Aled Wles ia Abe dviver's sibe door frame anh Mevefore cleavly possessed gorentially vsesu\ evilence Ma cold” nave soperted , | : Ped Noner's oa\h ~ defense clan Land Atvempted Murer in First degree? | 3. Te Ver\Moner’s J vbo Noth Covelinn, con Viclion fy cosaulh 7 with a deadly wenpun factually comparable to Washingtints . enme 6f assavlh (nw he second deare el . | , Q, Dib We Supreme Covey of Washington hepa ni Courss error, When Ye Supreme Cours decrhont rot Xo accept review of Preach cose, when Vk Was apparent Se Qyerce ; Coady Sherlblls Deparrtrmens aiad* ee An geod Park witha Xhety pricy on Xhe. los And io At ‘y) eo iv destrverion of the Velicle Pedrreree wes dv! $ ry Ke yime of he Shooting jncdenty Wes v4 Qe: 2g Cows Shevitt Department was Ayerrery No yeve ae \ | Rak le awd on Nykemple Murder In Pb degree) : end £ncwey le moenraVle : os