In Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360, 10 A.3d 184 (2010), the defendant was charged with crimes stemming from the stabbing of a fellow prisoner at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center ("MCAC"). The stabbing took place in a prison cell. After the attack, Major Donna Hansen, the investigative of-ficer, did not collect any evidence from inside the prison cell. On the night of the attack, she telephoned the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Internal Investigative Unit ("IIU"). Five days later, she spoke to a detective with the IIU, telling him that the cell was sealed and asking that the IIU release the cell. Thereafter, a detective from the IIU went to MCAC to investigate the matter, but could not examine the cell because it already had been cleaned and no physical evidence from it had been preserved. The victim's clothing was not accepted by the IIU's crime lab because of its age and the lack of chain of custody. Id. at 367, 10 A.3d 184. At trial, the court denied the defendant's request for a missing evidence instruction, reasoning that there was nothing to show that the State deliberately had destroyed the evidence. After the defendant was convicted of reckless endangerment, he appealed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion by not granting the requested instruction. The Cost Court held that the evidence that was destroyed went to the heart of the defendant's case, and that merely allowing counsel to argue the adverse inference from the destruction of evidence would be insufficient to ensure that the interest of justice was protected. Under those exceptional circumstances, the trial court was required to instruct the jury that it could infer that the evidence that was destroyed was unfavorable to the State. The Court took care, however, to explain that its holding "does not require a trial court to grant a missing evidence instruction, as a matter of course, whenever the defendant alleges non-production of evidence that the State might have introduced." Id. at 382. A trial court only will abuse its discretion in denying a request for a missing evidence instruction if "'the jury instructions, taken as a whole, do not sufficiently protect the defendant's rights' and 'cover adequately the issues raised by the evidence.'" Id. When destroyed evidence was not central to the defense case, was "not the type of evidence usually collected by the state, or was not already in the state's custody . . . a trial court may well be within its discretion to refuse" to give a missing evidence instruction. Id. In Cost v. State, the defendant was charged with crimes stemming from the stabbing of a fellow prisoner at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center ("MCAC"). The stabbing took place in a prison cell. After the attack, Major Donna Hansen, the investigative officer, did not collect any evidence from inside the prison cell. On the night of the attack, she telephoned the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Inter-nal Investigative Unit ("IIU"). Five days later, she spoke to a detective with the IIU, telling him that the cell was sealed and asking that the IIU release the cell. The victim's clothing was not accepted by the IIU's crime lab because of its age and the lack of chain of custody. Id. at 367. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion by not grant-ing the requested instruction. In Cost v. State, a defendant was charged with crimes arising from the stabbing of a fellow inmate in a prison cell. 417 Md. at 363. Before the crime scene could be examined, the cell was cleaned by prison officials and no physical evidence -- such as towels, bedding, and blood-stained clothing -- was preserved. Id. at 366-67. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give the missing evidence instruction. Id. at 382. The Court emphasized that the case was "not typical" and had "unusual facts." Id. at 380. The Court further explained that the type of evidence destroyed was "highly relevant evidence in the State's custody that it normally would have retained and submitted to forensic examination." Id. at 367. In Cost, the crime scene was cleaned rather than preserved. The Court emphasized that the destroyed evidence was evidence that normally would have been retained. In Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360, 369, 10 A.3d 184 (2010), the Court of Appeals reiterated that an appellate court generally reviews a trial court's decision not to grant a missing evidence instruction for an abuse of discretion. The Court found, however, that the facts in that case constituted an "exceptional circumstance" that com-pelled a missing evidence instruction. Id. at 378-79. The defendant in Cost was charged with crimes arising from the stabbing of a fellow prisoner in a prison cell. Id. at 363. The cell was cleaned by prison officials before it could be examined and none of the physical evidence was preserved. Id. at 366-67. The Court held that the missing evidence, blood stained clothing and blood on the cell floor, was "highly relevant evidence in the State's custody that it normally would have retained and submitted to forensic examination." Id. at 382. The missing evidence went "to the heart of the case," and the Court held that, given the facts of the case, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give a missing evidence instruction. Id. at 380-81. In Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360, 10 A.3d 184 (2010), the Court of Appeals held that a missing evidence instruction should have been given where evidence, which "was highly relevant" to the defendant's case, was "destroyed while in State custody." In Cost, the defendant, an inmate at a State correctional facility, was convicted of reckless endangerment for allegedly stabbing another inmate. 417 Md. at 365, 368. At trial, the State introduced photographic evidence of the defendant's cell from the night of the alleged stabbing which appeared to show blood stains on the floor of the cell, as well as a blood stained towel. Id. at 366. No physical evidence from the defendant's cell was retained. Id. at 366-67. The Court concluded that the defendant "was entitled to a jury instruction on the missing evidence because the State had destroyed highly relevant evidence in its custody that it normally would have retained and submitted to forensic examination." Id. at 382. In Cost, the Court noted that "such evidence might well have created reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt." 417 Md. at 380. Cost does not involve the circumstance of a witness not called to testify at trial.