id= 1202657565227?slreturn= 20140505130019. 4 . See Curtis & Co. Mfg. v. Douglas, 79 Tex. 167, 15 S.W. 154, 155 (1890) (noting that nonpreservation of evidence was "a circumstance to be considered by the jury”); Underwood v. Coolgrove, 59 Tex. 164, 170 (1883) (recognizing that the refusal to produce evidence in a party’s possession without explanation as to why it was not produced creates the belief that it would not aid the case of the nonproducing party); Cheatham, 8 Tex. at 162. 5 . See Trevino, 969 S.W.2d at 952 (refusing to recognize an independent tort of spoliation); Wal-Mart Stores, 106 S.W.3d at 722 (concluding that a party must possess a duty to preserve evidence in order for a spoliation instruction to be proper); see also Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex.2004) (<HOLDING>). 6 . The Texas spoliation presumption is a
holding that partys bad faith and callous disregard of his responsibilities justified courts striking of pleadings and entry of default judgment against him holding that an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence requires proof that evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind and that it was relevant to the partys claim or defense holding that officers fear of imminent destruction of evidence may justify a warrantless entry holding that partys deliberate  destruction of relevant evidence justified deathpenalty sanctions holding that the threat of imminent destruction of evidence of criminal activity created an exigent circumstance