Opinion ID: 2679922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of an Absence of Tampering

Text: [¶31] In its decision, the post-conviction court notes, “[T]here exists a [two]-year gap of the items before they were turned over to the police and there has been no proof presented that any of the items are in the same condition when the crime occurred or that they have not been tampered with.” Additionally, the post-conviction court found that Cookson “presented very little, if any, evidence that the clothes and sneakers have not been substituted, tampered with, replaced[,] or altered in any way.” The Court defers to this finding, confirming that “there simply was no testimony from any source at any stage of the proceeding suggesting that Vantol ever said that the clothes remained where he buried them during the two years between the murders and his confessions.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 17. [¶32] However, this decision erroneously applies our law on chain of custody for two reasons. First, our cases make clear that a chain of custody does not require that the party seeking to introduce the evidence negate every possibility 19 of tampering or that “some credible witness retained the exhibit . . . under constant watch.” Thibodeau, 353 A.2d at 603. Unlike in Thibodeau, where the court was admitting evidence in the context of a trial, here Cookson has a lower burden: to produce only prima facie evidence of a chain of custody. See 15 M.R.S. § 2138(4-A)(B). [¶33] Second, the State has stipulated that the clothing “is material to the issue of whether the person is the perpetrator of, or accomplice to, the crime that resulted in the conviction.” See 15 M.R.S. § 2138(4-A)(E). Because of this stipulation, there is no question that the clothing retrieved by Vantol is the clothing that may contain evidence related to the murders. As a result, the court need not determine whether it is “more probable than not that the object is the one connected with the case,” Thompson, 503 A.2d at 691; see also Cookson II, 2011 ME 53, ¶ 11, 17 A.3d 1208. [¶34] Even if the parties had not stipulated that the clothing is material to the identity of the perpetrator, the clothing is readily identifiable and is not fungible—meaning that, unlike drugs or money, it cannot easily be replaced with similar items—and, thus, we do not require the person seeking to introduce this evidence to provide evidence of its continued possession for the entire relevant period. See Lewis, 401 A.2d at 647; Thibodeau, 353 A.2d at 603. Continuity of possession by either Cookson or Vantol is unnecessary and irrelevant pursuant to 20 our case law on chain of custody, and the court erred in requiring Cookson to provide evidence that the clothes were not tampered with or altered from the time of the murders until he gave them to the police. See Thompson, 503 A.2d at 691; Lewis, 401 A.2d at 647; Thibodeau, 353 A.2d at 603; see also De LaRosa, 450 F.2d at 1068. [¶35] Vantol told detectives that the clothes he retrieved were the same as those that he wore during the murders and that he buried shortly after committing the homicides. By presenting evidence that the clothes were buried in a rural location in the Maine woods and then dug up later, the fact-finder may certainly infer “that the evidence has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced or altered in a material way.” See 15 M.R.S. § 2138(4-A)(B). Despite the fact that, here, the statute requires only prima facie evidence—a lower standard than that required in the context of a trial, see Thompson, 503 A.2d at 691—the Court attempts to heighten the requisite standard for chain of custody in the context of DNA testing. By affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court adopts a standard under which proponents, who at one point possessed items that they wish to submit for DNA analysis, must “eliminate all possibility of tampering with the exhibit involved,” thus demanding a condition that we have never before required. Thibodeau, 353 A.2d at 603. 21