the destroyed evidence provided respondent's "only hope for exoneration," App. to Pet. for Cert. 15, and was " 'essential to and determinative of the outcome of the case,' " App. to Pet. for Cert. 16 (quoting Newberry, supra, at 315, 652 N. E. 2d, at 291).
We also disagree that Youngblood does not apply whenever the contested evidence provides a defendant's "only hope for exoneration" and is " 'essential to and determinative of the outcome of the case.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. 15-
16 (citing Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d, at 315, 652 N. E. 2d, at 291).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&na...

In matters involving the admission of evidence, we "will reverse only if the error was so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial." State v. Hayes, 113 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Mo.App. E.D. 2003). In general, the issue is whether the evidence was "outcome determinative," that is whether the erroneously admitted evidence so influenced the decision maker that, when considered with and balanced against all the evidence properly admitted, there is a reasonable probability that the decision maker would have reached a different conclusion but for the erroneously admitted evidence. State v. Driscoll, 55 S.W.3d 350, 356 (Mo. banc 2001).
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/8e937ac7ce03...



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2007-05-15 18:54:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

"Una previsión de esta naturaleza carece de valor tratándose de materias dispositivas."

If it refers to the electronic signature having little value, materias dispositivas here means 'subjects or issues that are outcome-determinative', en otras palabras, que influyen en el resultado del caso. What I meant is that 'materias dispositivas' was not necessarily evidence 'available to the parties,' and it does not. "Materias" here refers to a topic or subject; dispositiva is outcome-determining.