What is the test for establishing that defendant failed to establish that a tape once existed but was destroyed?

2 The People here contend that defendant failed to establish that the tape ever existed or that it was destroyed. They made no such argument below. For the purpose of resolving the present appeal, we will assume, based on counsel's representations quoted above and reasonable inferences therefrom (People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 286, 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228), that a tape once existed but was no longer available at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. This assumption is not binding should the issue become relevant during further proceedings and once again be the focus of litigation.

3 The defendant in Scherling left California in July 1969 and did not return until February 1976.