Opinion ID: 1649540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chain of custody and sponsoring witness

Text: ¶ 14. Buel argues that before her medical records could be admitted at trial, Sims and Air Liquide had the burden of proving chain of custody and providing a sponsoring witness, though Buel does not dispute the authenticity of the records, and made no objection that this was not a proper self-authentication under M.R.E. 902(11). A review of the record reveals that the blood alcohol test at issue was performed at Memorial Hospital in Gulfport, where Buel was transported for treatment following the accident. The test report was maintained by Memorial Hospital as part of Buel's medical records while at the hospital. At trial, Sims and Air Liquide produced a certified copy of Buel's medical records, together with the affidavit of the custodian of those records. We have traditionally deferred chain of custody questions to the trial court and will not disturb those findings absent an abuse of discretion. Typically, we defer to the trial court's determination of whether authorities have maintained the chain of custody. When reviewing the chain of custody, we will not disturb the finding of the trial court unless there has been an abuse of discretion. The test to determine whether there has been a break in the chain of custody is whether there is evidence of probable tampering. Jackson v. Daley, 739 So.2d 1031, 1035 (Miss.1999). ¶ 15. Buel also argues that the trial court should have excluded her medical records because of the failure of Sims and Air Liquide to call a sponsoring witness pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901. Buel contends that such sponsoring witnesses should have included the technician who drew the blood, the Puckett Laboratory representative who performed the test, and the testimony of a witness capable of interpreting the results. In arguing that M.R.E. 901 requires authentication and identification as a condition precedent to admissibility, Buel relies heavily on our decision in Fulton v. City of Starkville, 645 So.2d 910 (Miss.1994). ¶ 16. In Fulton, the defendant challenged the results of a blood alcohol test on the basis that the statute required a chemical test by breath only. Id. at 911. The Court, in finding the argument without merit, noted that the blood alcohol content test was a proper test contemplated by statute. We further stated that in determining the admissibility of these tests, the inquiry should focus on the accuracy, reliability and proper admissibility of evidence. Id. at 914. ¶ 17. Unlike Fulton, with Buel, we are dealing with a civil, not criminal, matter, and there are no statutorily prescribed procedures. Instead, we have a test administered by hospital personnel for medical purposes. Buel's blood test is no different from the results of an x-ray, a myelogram or a myriad of medical tests which are routinely admitted into evidence as part of a party's medical records. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court, and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused, a situation which does not exist here. Johnston v. State, 567 So.2d 237, 238 (Miss.1990); see also Hentz v. State, 542 So.2d 914, 917 (Miss.1989); Monk v. State, 532 So.2d 592, 599 (Miss.1988). [1] We see no abuse of discretion here.