Opinion ID: 1711589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in admitting controlled substances without a credible chain of evidence.

Text: ¶ 26. Alexander argues that the chain of custody for the drug residue was defective and specifically focuses on the transfer of the contraband from Joe Allen to Sheriff Mike McKee. Allen received the film canister containing the drug residue from Ray Hill, and he stored the evidence in his chest of drawers for two days before finally delivering it to Sheriff McKee. Testimony at trial established that no one knew the evidence was stored in Allen's home during the two day period, no one had access to Allen's bedroom chest of drawers, and no one tampered with the evidence. ¶ 27. Sheriff McKee sealed the evidence and delivered it to Officer Cain of the Mississippi Highway Patrol. Cain delivered the evidence to the Mississippi Crime Lab in Meridian on July the 7th for analysis. While there is some indication of delays in terms of the time it took for Allen to pass the evidence to McKee, or for Cain to make the delivery at the Crime Lab, nothing in the record suggests any tampering occurred during these transfers. ¶ 28. The test for chain of custody is to ascertain whether there is any indication of tampering or substitution of the evidence. Gibson v. State, 503 So.2d 230, 234 (Miss.1987). Whether a chain of custody has been properly established is left to the discretion of the trial court. Nalls v. State, 651 So.2d 1074, 1077 (Miss. 1995). ¶ 29. We are compelled to note the distinction between the chain of custody issue and the five-hour lapse when the wrecked truck was unsecured after the accident and before Hill discovered the contraband. The chain of custody did not begin until Hill discovered and took possession of the evidence in the truck after it had been removed from the accident scene and taken to Allen's place of business. The more serious problem is the fact that the wrecked truck was unsecured for at least five hours. Anyone could have had access to the wreckage for purposes of planting or tampering with the evidence. While this is a critical fact on the issues discussed above, it does not present a significant problem to the familiar law on chain of custody as discussed here. Because there was no indication from the record that tampering or substitution of the evidence occurred after Hill discovered the evidence in the wrecked truck, we find no merit in this issue.