Case Title: Rosenbaum v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95-202

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rosenbaum v. State1996 WY 66915 P.2d 1200Case Number: 95-202Decided: 05/14/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jeffrey ROSENBAUM,

Appellant 
(Defendant),

 

v.

 

The STATE of 
Wyoming,

 Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal from 
the District Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J.

 

Tom Sedar, 
Casper, for 
appellant.

 

William U. 
Hill, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael 
Pauling, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, for appellee.

 

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR, and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

 

GOLDEN, Chief 
Justice.

 

[¶1]      Appellant Jeffrey 
Rosenbaum (Rosenbaum) appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine 
with intent to deliver on grounds the district court improperly admitted 
physical evidence.

 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Rosenbaum 
presents this issue:

 

The 
government's introduction of suspected drugs into evidence in lieu of defense 
counsel's objection to foundation of relevancy was reversible error.

 

[¶4]      The State 
rephrases the issue as:

 

Whether a 
sufficient "chain of custody" was presented to support the admission of 
methamphetamine seized from appellant?

 

FACTS

 

[¶5]      On September 26, 
1994, Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) agents and Natrona County 
Sheriff's Department deputies contacted Rosenbaum at his business in order to 
execute a felony arrest warrant issued by South Dakota. Upon arrest, Rosenbaum 
reached for a fanny pack at his waist. Police arrested Rosenbaum, searched the 
fanny pack, and found a rock-shaped substance and a white powder substance in a 
plastic bag, digital scales, and $7,540 in cash. Crime laboratory testing 
identified the substances and residue on the scales as methamphetamine. At the 
police station, police removed a baby bottle liner from Rosenbaum's pocket which 
had a powder residue in it. Rosenbaum volunteered that it was "my personal use 
stuff." Testing identified this residue as methamphetamine.

 

[¶6]      Rosenbaum was 
charged with possessing methamphetamine with intent to deliver, in violation of 
WYO. STAT. § 35-7-1016(d) and 1031(a)(ii). At his jury trial, Rosenbaum 
vigorously defended against evidence that he had intent to deliver, claiming 
that he had the drugs because he was an addict and the cash was working capital 
required by his successful auto repair business. Through numerous pretrial 
motions, motion hearings, and objections at trial, Rosenbaum challenged the 
admissibility of physical evidence consisting of the substances and scales on 
chain of custody grounds. The evidence was admitted, Rosenbaum was convicted, 
sentenced to six to ten years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary, and this appeal 
followed.

 

Standard of 
Review

 

[¶7]      Generally, all 
relevant evidence is admissible. Candelaria v. State, 895 P.2d 434, 436 (Wyo. 
1995). As part of the relevancy determination, WYO. R. EVID. 901 requires the 
authentication or identification of physical evidence before the evidence is 
admissible. Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 656-57 (Wyo. 1993). Proper foundation 
for the admission into evidence of controlled substances requires that a chain 
of custody be established. Ostrowski v. State, 665 P.2d 471, 490 (Wyo. 1983). 
The purpose for this standard for the admission of exhibits into evidence is 
that there must be a showing that the physical exhibit being offered is in 
substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed. Robinson v. 
State, 716 P.2d 364, 369 (Wyo. 1986). This determination is to be made by the 
trial judge and may not be overturned but for a clear abuse of discretion. 
Candelaria, 895 P.2d  at 436.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶8]      The character of 
controlled substance evidence requires laying of a particular type of foundation 
in order to satisfy Rule 901 since, typically, a specific controlled substance 
sample has no distinct characteristic by which to readily differentiate it from 
other such samples or from similar appearing but lawfully possessed substances. 
Robinson, 716 P.2d  at 368-69. Authentication and identification of the specific 
sample are accomplished by setting out the circumstances surrounding its custody 
in the period between seizure and trial. Id.; United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1531-32 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 909, 109 S. Ct. 3197, 
105 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1989). If the opponent seeks exclusion based on alteration, 
misidentification, or contamination of the evidence, he must support that charge 
with more than speculation. Robinson, 716 P.2d  at 369; see Westwood v. State, 
693 P.2d 763, 767 (Wyo. 1985).

 

[¶9]      In this case, 
Rosenbaum contends that a significant difference between the weights of the 
seized controlled substances when field tested and weighed by the crime lab 
raises an issue of chain of custody. He further suggests that, because the State 
failed to use sufficient tamperproof packaging, these weight discrepancies 
prevented the State from establishing the chain of custody and the district 
court erred in admitting the physical evidence. Field tests reported the seized 
quantities as weighing 1.67 ounces (about 47 grams) and 3.4 grams, but the State 
Crime Laboratory reported the substances as weighing 38.7 grams and 1.5 grams 
respectively. The substances were photographed, placed in envelopes, 
appropriately marked, and then hand delivered to the laboratory. The State's use 
of a clasp to seal the envelope gives rise to Rosenbaum's suggestion that the 
packaging is insufficiently tamper-proof.

 

[¶10]   Rosenbaum's challenge required the 
trial court to consider the nature of the evidence the State would present, the 
circumstances surrounding its preservation and custody, and the likelihood of 
any tampering. The trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting the 
evidence if it can rationally conclude from these factors that the evidence to 
be introduced is in substantially the same condition as it was at the time of 
the defendant's alleged crime.

 

[¶11]   The State's burden in meeting the 
foundation requirement is not a heavy one for Rule 901 is intended to preserve 
the general preference of the rules of evidence in favor of admissibility. Once 
the proffered evidence is connected to the charged crime, any defects or 
uncertainties whether evident in the State's foundation or deriving from 
contrary evidence by a defendant should be held to affect only the weight of the 
proffered evidence, not its admissibility. Taul, 862 P.2d  at 657.

 

[¶12]   The burden of the State with 
respect to such a chain of custody is to set forth such facts as would permit a 
reasonable certainty that a drug sample, which has otherwise been identified and 
tied to the case, has not been materially tampered with or altered subsequent to 
its seizure. Westwood, 693 P.2d  at 767. Some prima facie foundation must be 
provided making it reasonably probable that no material change has occurred to 
the sample which would render its admission misleading. Robinson, 716 P.2d at 
368-69; Westwood, 693 P.2d  at 767; DeLuna v. State, 501 P.2d 1021, 1025 (Wyo. 
1972). Although in controlled substances cases the State must generally show a 
continuous chain of custody of the drugs, it need not show that its agents 
maintained a round-the-clock watch over that evidence or produce the testimony 
of each person who handled the evidence. Robinson, 716 P.2d  at 
368-69.

 

[¶13]   Our review of the record indicates 
that standard procedures were followed by State agents. The forensic chemist 
testified he found no evidence of an actual, material alteration of the 
composition of the substance or material tampering with it. In view of the legal 
principles just discussed, we agree with the State's view that a defendant 
cannot have controlled substances evidence excluded by pointing solely to a 
discrepancy related to the weight of the proffered substances.

 

[¶14]   Through testimony in this case, the 
State established that the challenged exhibits were photographed, packaged, 
marked, and hand delivered by DCI agents to the state crime laboratory's 
employee using standard procedure and without unusual incident. Rosenbaum 
stipulated to the State's chain of custody once the challenged exhibits reached 
the State Crime Laboratory, conceding that the laboratory's procedures and 
handling of evidence were proper. Testimony explained that the weight 
discrepancy most likely occurred because field testing weighed the substance in 
the container on seized scales where the accuracy was unknown, whereas the lab 
weighed only the drug on certified scales.

 

[¶15]   We find nothing in the record to 
indicate that the weight discrepancy caused the evidence to be misleading. The 
court properly admitted the evidence. Affirmed.