Opinion ID: 2326611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Custodial Chain of Evidence

Text: The defendant next argues that the trial justice improperly admitted certain physical evidence without showing a continuous chain of custody, and thus the Superior Court erred in permitting Jennifer Finch, a forensic scientist from the Department of Health, to testify that the tests that she performed on pubic hair samples revealed the presence of semen. A review of the record indicates that on September 24, 1996, speculum samples were taken from Mary's vaginal and rectal areas as part of the rape-kit examination administered by Dr. McCue, and samples of pubic hairs were taken from Mary's body and her clothing by Nurse Laura Tetrault. [7] Detective Molloy testified that she observed Nurse Tetrault take the hair and swab samples from Mary's pubic region, and that those samples were forwarded to the Department of Health. Rhode Island State Forensic Scientist Jennifer Finch testified that she received the sexual assault evidence collection kit from Mr. Menard of Women & Infants Hospital. At trial, defendant objected to the results of the tests performed on these samples based on a lack of foundation and insufficient chain of custody. The judge overruled the objections, saying: the burden is on the person who contends that there's been some break in the chain of custody from the time a sample is collected until the time it gets analyzed. And, I'm satisfied in this case that the grounds are not well founded. The defendant now charges reversible error based on this alleged insufficiency in the chain of custody between Nurse Tetrault and the Rhode Island Department of Health. We again reiterate that the admission of evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial justice and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Hazard, 785 A.2d at 1120 (quoting Graff, 748 A.2d at 252). It is well established that the showing of continuous chain of custody is relevant only to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.  State v. Cohen, 538 A.2d 151, 154 (R.I.1988). To admit physical evidence, a party must show only the reasonable probability that no one has tampered with the exhibit. See State v. Reyes, 673 A.2d 454, 457 (R.I.1996) (per curiam) (citing State v. Bracero, 434 A.2d 286, 290 (R.I.1981)); Cohen, 538 A.2d at 154. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the state satisfied its burden of establishing a reasonable probability that no one tampered with the evidence. The defendant did not offer any evidence to rebut this showing. Accordingly, the evidence on the chain of custody in this case was sufficient to establish admissibility.