Opinion ID: 1967813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alleged Improper Admission of The Seized Cocaine Into Evidence

Text: Guinn's first claim is that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the cocaine that had been found in the police conference room on December 18, 2002. Guinn argues that the State did not meet its burden of authenticating the evidence by eliminating the possibility of misidentification or adulteration as a matter of reasonable probability. Both sides agree that the standard by which this claim is reviewed is abuse of discretion. [1] This claim lacks merit because as a matter of fact and law, the State did meet its burden. The State may authenticate an item that it claims was involved in a crime 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.' [2] Here, the State used both methods to authenticate the contraband drug evidence. In this case, Guinn's sole challenge is to the chain of custody. His challenge fails, because the alleged break in the chain of custody occurred only after the contraband had already been tested by a forensic chemist (and determined to be cocaine) in October 2002, and after that evidence had been returned to the Dover Police Department. Even if the entire substance had been consumed in the testing or had been lost (neither of which occurred here), the testing results were still admissible to establish, prima facie, that Guinn was in possession of cocaine. [3] Moreover, Guinn's former counsel, who examined the contraband on December 16, 2002, testified that the cocaine introduced at trial appeared to be the same substance he had previously observed. Both Officers Watts and Kuntzi gave similar testimony, and were able to make that identification because the crack cocaine rock had distinctive black markings on it. Officer Watts testified that the cocaine rock had black markings all over it; Officer Kuntzi testified that the cocaine rock had black scribbling on it, and that he had never seen such markings before or since. Thus, the drug evidence was properly authenticated by the alternative means of eyewitness identification permitted under Delaware law. In addition, Robert Neylan, the Dover Police evidence technician, confirmed the other links in the chain of custody. There is no identification issue during the interval between the time of the seizure in July 2002 and the time the drugs were signed out to Guinn's former attorney for inspection on December 16, 2002. Although the drugs were not returned to the evidence envelope immediately after the December 16 inspection, Neylan did locate the drugs two days later in the same envelope in the same conference room where the inspection had occurred two days before, and he testified that there was no evidence that the drugs had been altered or tampered with. In these circumstances the State has discharged its burden to demonstrate to a reasonable probability that the cocaine admitted into evidence at trial was the same substance that was seized from Guinn in July 2002.