Opinion ID: 1743598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the trial court erred in allowing into evidence a projectile without establishing the proper chain of custody.

Text: ¶ 24. Spann argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence a projectile when the evidence custodian of the Hattiesburg Police Department, Officer Buffington, did not testify as to his receipt and logging in of the evidence. The admissibility of evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court. Sturdivant v. State, 745 So.2d 240, 243 (Miss. 1999) (citing Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1078 (Miss.1992); Wade v. State, 583 So.2d 965, 967 (Miss.1991)). Spann contends that the missing link in the chain of custody is sufficient to warrant this Court's holding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the projectile into evidence. ¶ 25. The projectile in question is the bullet taken from Ms. Su's chest. The chain of custody for it is as follows. The projectile was removed from Ms. Su at the Surgery Clinic of Hattiesburg. Officer Traxler of the Hattiesburg Police Department retrieved the projectile from the Surgery Clinic and transported it to the evidence locker at the Hattiesburg Police Department. There the evidence was received by the evidence custodian, Officer Buffington. Officer Jeff Byrd took the projectile to the Mississippi Crime Lab. Starks Hathcock, an employee of the Mississippi Crime Lab, received the projectile at the Crime Lab and, subsequent to testing the projectile, returned the projectile to the vault, where it was retrieved by Officer Byrd. The State offered the testimony of the attending nurse from the Surgery Clinic, Traxler, Byrd, and Hathcock. The State did not offer the testimony of Buffington. When the State attempted to introduce the projectile into evidence via the testimony of Hathcock, defense counsel objected on the basis that the State had not offered the testimony of Buffington. The following exchange took place: THE COURT: What's the basis of your objection? MR. RATLIFF [for Spann]: When Mr. Byrd testified yesterday, he identified another person who had custody of that exhibit, who they have not brought to court to complete the chain. THE COURT: Now, who would that be? MR. RATLIFF: Officer Buffington. Mr. Buffington. MR. JONES [for the State]: If the Court please, we don't have to bring every individual. I didn't hear Officer Traxler testify, but I believe he delivered it to the evidence custodian there at that particular time, Mr. Buffington. I mean, we can bring him if we're required to bring him up here, but - [Jury is dismissed.] MR. RATLIFF: Your Honor, yesterday in his testimony, Mr. Byrd testified specifically as to the exhibit that we're dealing with right now, which is No. 12, that that particular exhibit at some point went into the custody of Mr. Buffington at the Police Department, and we submit that without his testimony the State cannot complete the chain of custody, cannot make all the links in the chain, and for that reason we object to the introduction of that exhibit at this time. ¶ 26. The trial judge noted that the State is not required to offer the testimony of every person who handled the projectile and overruled Spann's objection, stating that without the contention in this record of any tampering or alteration of that evidence, the Court would rule that that is merely one administrative step since [Officer Buffington] is just the custodian of it.... Defense counsel stated that it was not prepared to put on evidence of any tampering. The trial judge appropriately relied upon this Court's decision in Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951 (Miss.1992), in ruling that absent Spann's contention of tampering or alteration of the projectile, the State had satisfied the rule of evidence governing the requirement of authentication or identification that the condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Miss. R. Evid. 901(a). In Ormond, this Court explained: The advent of the current rules of evidence has not changed the rule that the proponent must satisfy the trial court that there is no reasonable inference of material tampering with or (deliberate or accidental) substitution of the evidence; this state's law has never required a proponent of evidence to produce every handler of the evidence. Butler v. State, 592 So.2d 983, 985 (Miss. 1991). This case presents no evidence of alteration or substitution or tampering with the [evidence] at any time. Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, although the chain may not have been thoroughly demonstrated, in the absence of any contention of alteration or tampering, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the [evidence]. Ormond, 599 So.2d at 959. The test of whether there has been a break in the chain of custody of evidence is whether there is an indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with the evidence or substitution of the evidence. Nails v. State, 651 So.2d 1074, 1077 (Miss. 1995) (citing Gibson v. State, 503 So.2d 230, 234 (Miss.1987); Nix v. State, 276 So.2d 652, 653 (Miss.1973)). ¶ 27. In examining the record, this Court finds no indication that the projectile entered into evidence had been tampered with, and as such, there was no break in the chain of custody. Though the chain was not thoroughly demonstrated, the State clearly offered sufficient evidence, under the abuse of discretion standard, that the projectile in question is what the State claimed it isthat is, the projectile removed from Ms. Su. This assignment of error is without merit.