Opinion ID: 2102287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Chemical Testing of a Controlled Substance

Text: Seward further argues that expert testimony from a chemist is necessary to strictly prove the identity of the substance he possessed because of the harsh penalties involved for violations of the controlled substances act. [4] The well established rule in Delaware is that direct evidence is not necessary to establish guilt, because guilt may be proven exclusively through circumstantial evidence since this Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence in a conviction context. [5] Other jurisdictions have held that chemical testing is not necessary to support a conviction. [6] The court in United States v. Schrock rejected a similar argument for chemical testing stating: [i]llegal drugs will often be unavailable for scientific analysis because their nature is to be consumed. As a practical matter, therefore, the evidentiary rule urged by Schrock would insulate from prosecution a large class of unlawful acts involving illicit drugs when the government happens upon the scene too late to seize a sample of the substance. To our knowledge, no court has held that scientific identification of a substance is an absolute prerequisite to conviction for a drug-related offense, and we too are unwilling to announce such a rule. In view of the limitations that such a burden would place on prosecutors, and in accordance with general evidentiary principles, courts have held that the government may establish the identity of a drug through cumulative circumstantial evidence. So long as the government produces sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which the jury is able to identify the substance beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of scientific evidence is not objectionable. [7] Seward is asking this Court to depart from the rule that guilt can be established from circumstantial evidence. We see no reason to depart from settled Delaware law that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt and thereby carve out an exception in drug cases requiring expert testimony to establish whether the substance is in fact an illegal drug. Under our process the trier of fact takes into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding an alleged crime to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.