In Deberry v. State, 457 A.2d 744 (Del. 1983), the Defendant was charged with rape and the State confiscated his clothing. While in the possession of the State, the clothing was lost. The victim's hand was cut by the assailant's knife so the absence of blood on the Defendant's clothing could have been exculpatory and therefore discoverable under either Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), or Superior Court Criminal Rule 16(b). The question asked in Deberry was, "what relief is appropriate when the State had or should have had the requested evidence, but the evidence does not exist when the defense seeks its production?" Id. at 749. The Court created this three-step analysis: (1) would the requested material, if extant in the possession of the State at the time of the defense request, have been subject to disclosure under Criminal Rule 16 or Brady? (2) if so, did the government have a duty to preserve the material? (3) if there was a duty to preserve, was the duty breached, and what consequences should flow from a breach? Id. at 750. When determining what consequences should flow from the breach under step three, the Court must weigh the State's conduct against the prejudice to the Defendant. Id. at 752.