Case Title: Lee v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: cr96-466

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Lendell LEE v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-466                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered October 7, 1996


1.   Evidence -- evidence supporting criminal verdict must be
     substantial -- substantial evidence defined. -- On appeal, the
     court determines whether the evidence in support of the
     verdict is substantial; substantial evidence is that which is
     forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a
     conclusion one way or another; in a criminal case, the court
     reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the State
     and considers only that evidence which supports the guilty
     verdict.  

2.   Evidence -- fingerprints can constitute evidence sufficient to
     sustain conviction. -- Fingerprints can constitute evidence
     that is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

3.   Evidence -- evidence of rape overwhelming -- trial court did
     not err in denying motion for directed verdict. -- There was
     overwhelming evidence of the rape and kidnapping from the
     testimony of the victim and the emergency-room physician;
     moreover, the evidence linking appellant to the assault was
     substantial and included fingerprints taken from the place of
     attack that matched appellant's and semen in the vaginal swabs
     taken from the victim and appellant's blood that matched, with
     the chance of an identical match being one in eighty-three
     million; the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's
     conviction for the crimes charged; the trial court did not err
     in denying his motion for directed verdict.

4.   Evidence -- blood samples require conclusive chain of custody
     -- evidence matters are within sound discretion of the trial
     court and will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion. --
     Blood samples, which are considered interchangeable items,
     require a more conclusive chain of custody than items of
     evidence that are subject to positive identification; however,
     evidentiary matters regarding the admissibility of evidence
     are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and
     rulings in this regard will not be reversed absent an abuse of
     discretion.  

5.   Evidence -- purpose of establishing chain of custody -- mere
     possibility of access to blood is not enough to render test
     results from that blood inadmissible. -- The purpose of
     establishing a chain of custody is to prevent the introduction
     of evidence that is not authentic or that has been tampered
     with; the trial court must be satisfied, within a reasonable
     probability, that the evidence has not been tampered with; it
     is not necessary that the State eliminate every possibility of
     tampering; the mere possibility of access to blood, where
     there is no evidence of tampering, is not enough to render
     test results from that blood inadmissible.    

6.   Evidence -- DNA evidence and testimony properly admitted --
     testimony revealed continuous chain of custody. -- The trial
     court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the DNA
     evidence and testimony; with regard to the rape kit (and the
     swabs contained therein), the abstract did not reveal that
     appellant made a specific objection to its introduction;
     arguably, this could be seen as a waiver of the right to raise
     this point on appeal; however, even on the merits, the
     testimony revealed a continuous chain of custody from the time
     the rape kit was used to examine the victim until it was
     submitted to the FBI for DNA testing.  

7.   Evidence -- blood samples revealed successive chain of custody
     -- no abuse of discretion found in admitting samples. -- Where
     the blood samples taken from appellant and the victim revealed
     a successive chain of custody, the trial court's determination
     that the integrity and authenticity of the evidence had been
     clearly established was not an abuse of discretion; there was
     no evidence in the record that reflected any actual tampering
     or contamination of the samples or a significant gap in the
     chain of custody; absent evidence of tampering, the trial
     court's ruling will not be disturbed unless there is a clear
     abuse of discretion. 


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Marion
Humphrey, Judge; affirmed.
     Wallace, Hamner, and Adams, by:  Dale E. Adams, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen.,  and Stuart A. Cearley, Law Student Admitted to
Practice Pursuant to Rule XV(G)(1)(b) of the Rules Governing the
Admission to the Bar, for appellee.

     Andree Layton Roaf, Justice.
     Appellant Ledell Lee appeals his convictions for kidnapping
and rape.  He was sentenced to sixty years on each conviction, to
be served concurrently.  Lee argues that there was insufficient
evidence to sustain the verdicts without erroneously admitted DNA
evidence.  He contends that the DNA evidence was inadmissible
because the state failed to establish a proper chain of custody for
blood samples and tissue swabs used to perform the DNA analysis. 
We find no error and affirm.
     Lee was convicted of the kidnapping and rape of a seventeen-
year-old girl in Jacksonville, Arkansas.  The victim was abducted
from her sister's home on the night of November 27, 1990, and was
raped in a wooded area behind the house.  The victim described her
attacker as a tall, black male, but was unable to identify him
because he prevented her from seeing his face during the attack. 
Evidence from a rape-kit examination performed on the victim was
submitted to the state crime laboratory for analysis.  Hair
combings from the victim's clothing contained two Negroid hairs,
and semen was identified in vaginal swabs taken from the rape
examination.  After the analysis, the rape-kit evidence was stored
by the state crime lab in a secure freezer in May, 1991.    Also,
two days after the rape, Jacksonville police officers processed the
victim's home for evidence and took latent fingerprints from inside
and outside the residence.  The case remained in an inactive status
until Lee became a suspect in February, 1993. 
     Hand prints and fingerprints, hair samples, and a blood sample
were taken from Lee in February, 1993.  Lee's palm print matched a
palm print found on a bedroom window at the victim's home.  Lee's
blood was tested along with the victim's blood and the vaginal
swabs from the rape kit.  The FBI agent who performed the DNA
analysis concluded that the probability of the assailant being
someone other than Lee was one in eighty-three million from the
black population.  The palm print and the DNA profile evidence
essentially comprised the state's case against Lee. 
                 1.  Sufficiency of the Evidence
     Lee contends that because the state failed to establish an
adequate chain of custody for blood samples used in the DNA
analysis, his motion for a directed verdict should have been
granted.  Lee submits that the motion for directed verdict should
have been granted because, without the erroneously admitted DNA
testimony, the evidence of the matching palm print was insufficient
to connect him to the assault on the victim.  Although Lee combines
his argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence with his
challenge to the admissibility of the DNA evidence, the
preservation of an appellant's right to freedom from double
jeopardy requires that we review the sufficiency of the evidence
prior to examining trial error.  Passley v. State, 323 Ark. 301,
915 S.W.2d 248 (1996).  Consequently, we address Lee's challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence before considering his other
assignments of trial error.  In determining the sufficiency
question, we disregard any alleged trial errors. Young v. State,
316 Ark. 225,