Opinion ID: 2180416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cocaine Properly Admitted

Text: Hendricks first argues that the Superior Court erred in admitting into evidence the cocaine that Delaware State Police undercover Detective David Wainwright purchased from Hendricks in June 1998. Hendricks contends that the State did not sufficiently establish the cocaine's chain of custody because the evidence tag had been altered before trial. The record reflects that the State established a sufficient chain of custody to permit the admission of the cocaine into evidence. The State introduced the cocaine Detective Wainwright had purchased from Hendricks, during Detective Wainwright's testimony. During his direct examination, Detective Wainwright testified that according to the evidence tag, he collected the cocaine at 16:58 (military time) on June 16, and that he placed it in the evidence locker at 18:00 (military time) that same day. During his cross-examination, Detective Wainwright acknowledged that he had scratched out and rewritten the time that the cocaine was placed in the evidence locker. On his redirect examination, Detective Wainwright explained that because his handwriting on the original tag was unclear, he scratched out and rewrote the number 8 in 18:00 to make it clearer. To corroborate this testimony, Detective Wainwright explained that his police report state[d] on 6/16/1998 at approximately 1800 hours I responded back, field tested, weighed and logged in the crack cocaine that was purchased during this investigation. Pursuant to D.R.E. 901(a), a party offering an item into evidence bears the burden of proving that the item in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to decide whether evidence has been properly authenticated. [5] The State may authenticate physical evidence in two ways. The State may have witnesses visually identify the item as that which was actually involved with the crime, or it may establish a `chain of custody,' which indirectly establishes the identity and integrity of the evidence by tracing its continuous whereabouts. [6] Generally, it is within the trial judge's discretion whether to admit evidence in particular circumstances. [7] When presented with a challenge to the chain of custody of an item of evidence, the trial judge should examine whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence offered has been properly identified and that no adulteration or tampering has occurred. [8] The State must prove the reasonable probability of each proposition. [9] The record reflects that Detective Wainwright's testimony is sufficient to establish that the cocaine had been properly authenticated and that it had not been adulterated or tampered with in any manner. Detective Wainwright testified that he scratched out and rewrote the number 8. He verified the time by referring to his police report. There was no evidence that anyone other than Detective Wainwright had possession of the cocaine before it was admitted into evidence. Accordingly, the record reflects that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the cocaine into evidence.