Opinion ID: 4574286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of the Handgun in Evidence

Text: Blocker next claims that the trial court erred by admitting the handgun in evidence because “the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that it “was the same gun allegedly recovered from the crime scene[.]” The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of physical evidence, which 19 Id. 20 Id. (quoting Logan v. United States, 591 A.2d 850, 852 (D.C. 1991)). 14 we review for abuse of discretion. 21 “[W]hen physical evidence is in the hands of the government, the presumption arises that it has been handled properly.” 22 Moreover, any gaps in the chain of custody “normally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.”23 Furthermore, “once the government has established an unbroken chain of custody as a matter of reasonable probability, [the] defendant must present evidence that the police tampered with or otherwise mishandled the evidence in order to succeed with his challenge.” 24 Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the handgun in evidence; the government established an unbroken chain of custody. First, Officer Scott testified that, as he was arresting Blocker on September 2, 2017, he “observed in plain view a black handgun” on the pavement near Blocker. Officer Moe, who arrived seconds after Officer Scott to help arrest Blocker, also testified that he had seen the gun next to Blocker. 21 See Wonson v. United States, 144 A.3d 1, 3 (D.C. 2016); Brooks v. United States, 993 A.2d 1090, 1094 (D.C. 2010). 22 Plummer v. United States, 43 A.3d 260, 272 (D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 23 Brooks, 993 A.2d at 1094 (quoting Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 311 n.1 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 24 Plummer, 43 A.3d at 272 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 15 Second, Officer Scott testified that the gun “was secured” and “taken back to our branch where it was processed by the crime scene technician.” Officer Moe expanded on this testimony, stating that he had taken a picture of the gun at the scene of Blocker’s arrest and placed the gun in a paper bag to preserve the evidence. Officer Moe then took the gun in the bag to the NSID25 at the 2850 New York Avenue, Northeast station, where Officers Scott and Lojocano were present. Moe believed that the gun was transferred over to “mobile crime,” which had “responded to the scene” (meaning the station) “to recover the weapon.” Third, Officer Johnson, a crime scene technician, testified that he was the one who had gone to the “narcotics office” on September 2 to retrieve the handgun. He further testified that Officer Lojocano had “brought out a 45 caliber weapon to me and I recovered it from him.” Officer Johnson also testified that he had placed the gun in an “evidence envelope” marked with his name, badge number, and the location where the gun was originally recovered — in this case, the 2300 block of G Street, Northeast. He then took the gun “back to [his] lab[,] . . . placed [the gun] in a property envelope, seal[ed] it, and forward[ed] it to the firearms examination section.” Finally, Officer Johnson confirmed in court that the gun the government 25 Narcotics Special Investigation Division. 16 offered in evidence was the gun he had retrieved from the NSID on September 2, 2017. Taken together, the steps to which these three officers testified established a reasonable probability26 that the gun found next to Blocker was the same gun introduced in court. Indeed, there was eyewitness testimony confirming each of the four steps specified above. Presumably, Officer Lojocano also could have been called to testify that he had given the gun to Officer Johnson. But, in light of the eyewitness testimony confirming Officer Lojocano’s actions, his testimony was unnecessary to establishing the chain of custody. As we have said, “[t]o provide sufficient proof, the government need not ‘call to the stand every witness who may have handled a piece of evidence[.]’”27 In light of the forgoing testimony, and as Blocker has not shown credible evidence that the gun was tampered with or otherwise mishandled, Blocker has not 26 See supra note 24 and accompanying text. 27 Wonson, 144 A.3d at 14 (Easterly, J., concurring) (quoting United States v. Mejia, 597 F.3d 1329, 1335 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2010)). 17 rebutted the presumption that the government properly handled the evidence. 28 There was no error in admission of the handgun.