In State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), the defendant argued that the videotape could have supported his claim that he was suffering from a medical condition rather than exhibiting signs of intoxication. The supreme court characterized the issue as follows: "The analysis of both Brady v. Maryland and United States v. Agurs concerns the prosecution's suppression of "plainly exculpatory" evidence. This strikes a sharp contrast to the case under review wherein the existence of the destroyed videotape was known to the defense but where its true nature (exculpatory, inculpatory, or neutral) can never be determined." (Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 915.) In Ferguson, the Court concluded that the due process principles of the Tennessee Constitution are broader than those enunciated in the United States Constitution and that fundamental fairness, as an element of due process, requires that the state's failure to preserve evidence which could be favorable to the defendant be evaluated in the context of the entire record. The balancing test is based upon the following factors: (1) whether the state had a duty to preserve the evidence; (2) the degree of negligence involved; (3) the significance of the destroyed evidence, considered in light of the probative value and reliability of secondary or substitute evidence that remains available; (4) the sufficiency of the other evidence against the defendant. (Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 916.) If a trial without the lost or destroyed evidence would be unfair, the trial judge may dismiss the charges, provide a jury instruction, or take other steps necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d at 917. In Ferguson, the Court ultimately determined that the defendant had not been deprived of his right to a fair trial based on the loss of the videotape.