Court Opinion

ID: 9587255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:20:03.061912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:39.622113
License: Public Domain

Harrison, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The victim was attacked and beaten with an iron wrench, choked and raped. Defendant was arrested about thirty minutes after the rape, identified by the victim as her assailant, and thereafter identified by her at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. The identification was positive and unequivocal, and the evidence establishing his guilt is clear and overwhelming.
The only issue before this court concerns the chain of possession and therefore the integrity of certain exhibits introduced by the Commonwealth. I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of the underpants and blouse worn by the victim at the tim'e of the rape and of certain pubic hairs that were taken from her by a nurse.
The testimony is that the only contact that occurred, or could have occurred, between the victim and the defendant was at the time of the rape. The defendant was identified by the victim before she was taken to the hospital for treatment. At the time of this identification she was inside the apartment building and viewed the defendant who, with other individuals, was on the outside. Immediately after identification was made defendant was arrested and taken to the police station where his clothes were removed, packaged, sealed and delivered to th'e property custodian for the police department.
Analysis of defendant’s sweater disclosed that it consisted of six different colors of woolen fibers. Fibers were found on the surface of the victim’s blouse having the same six colors and microscopic appearance and qualities as those on the sweater. Analysis of the defendant’s undershorts disclosed two rigid semen stains on the fly, *140and one Caucasian pubic hair which had been forcibly removed from the skin. Analysis of the victim’s underpants disclosed a rigid semen stain in the crotch. Also noted on the victim’s underpants and blouse were blood stains.
The victim was taken to the emergency room of a local hospital where she remained for approximately two hours during which time a nurse removed from her a number of pubic hairs. Thereafter these hairs, as well as the Caucasian pubic hair found on the defendant’s underpants, were analyzed and found similar based on about fifteen different microscopic characteristics.
Clearly it was proper for the court to have admitted in evidence the defendant’s underpants and sweater. The continuity of their possession is unquestioned. It is equally clear that the introduction of the victim’s blouse, on which was found the same type and kind of fibers as compose the defendant’s sweater, was proper, since there was evidence that the only contact between the defendant’s sweater and the victim’s blouse occurred at the time of the rape.
The defendant was charged with both rape and felonious assault, and it was proper for the Commonwealth to show the extent of the injuries sustained by th'e victim. She said that the defendant beat her with a wrench and that she bled profusely. She positively identified the underpants and blouse which were offered in evidence as being the ones that she was wearing at the time, and both were bloodstained —all consistent with and corroborative of her testimony as to the extent of the assault.
During the time the victim was in the emergency room of the hospital, the pubic hairs were withdrawn and placed in a white envelope all in her presence. At the trial she so testified, and was shown the envelope, which contained the hairs and asked:
“Q. I show you this envelope. Can you identify that?
“A. That looks like—yes.
“Q. The envelope that your pubic hairs—
“A. Yes.
“Q. —were placed in?
“A. Yes.”
It therefore appears that the victim did identify the envelope in which the hairs taken from her were placed. This envelope contains on its face the name and address of the hospital—“The Alexandria Hospital, Alexandria, Virginia 22314”, Written on the envelope is the *141following: “[Victim’s name]—only pubic sample from above victim —Turned over to Officer Thompson by R. N. Watts on 2/4/69 at 2:20 P. M.” Police Officer Thompson testified that he received this envelope from the nurse at the hospital. Obviously he was referring to Nurse Watts. The handling of this ’exhibit thereafter is not questioned.
While the nurse who delivered the victim’s underpants to Thompson for packaging and safekeeping should have been called as a witness, the failure to do so should not constitute reversible error under the facts and circumstances of this case. The wrapping in which this undergarment was packaged and sealed has this notation thereon: “2/4/69 at 1:30 P.M. undergarment from [the victim] turned over to Officer Thompson by Mrs. Watts, R. N.” The conclusion is inescapable that the Mrs. Watts who delivered the undergarment and pubic hairs to Officer Thompson is a registered nurse and is one and the same person as the nurse who was on duty in th'e emergency room in the Alexandria hospital to which the victim was taken and who is alluded to in the testimony by the officers.
The possibility is extremely remote that there could have been a tampering with the exhibits or any transfer of particles, fibers, semen or blood between the victim or her clothing, and th'e defendant or his clothing, subsequent to the rape.
The rule of law which requires continuity in the chain of possession of exhibits must be given a reasonable construction, and as we have said, the burden is not absolute that all possibility of tampering be eliminated.
The undergarments of the victim and the defendant were admissible to prove that there had been a consummated act of intercourse as claimed by the prosecutrix. The presence of semen stains on both undergarments was corroborative evidence of her statements. The pubic hair found on the defendant’s undershorts carné from a Caucasian. Again this was corroborative of the victim’s testimony that she was raped by a non-Caucasian, and admissible for that purpose.
The cases relied on by the majority do not control here for they concern the results of fingerprinting or of a blood analysis. Neither fingerprints nor blood can be identified except by experts and through analysis. With the exception of the pubic hairs, all of the physical evidence in this case is susceptible of positive identification by persons other than experts and has been so identified.
The possibility exists in this case, as it does in all cases, that exhibits may be tampered with by those in whose care they may be *142entrusted pending trial. However, there is not the slightest evidence or intimation in the record before us that any exhibit has been tampered with, or handled other than in a routine and proper manner.
It is true that Officer Pendergraph, who delivered the victim’s blouse and slacks to Officer Thompson, did not testify. However, Thompson testified that when he received them from Pendergraph they were then in a paper bag (introduced as an exhibit) and that it (the bag) was immediately sealed, initialed and dated. He further testified that at no time during which these exhibits were in his possession did they come in contact with the defendant’s sweater or underpants.
While the “[b]urden is on the party relying on expert testimony to prove identity of object upon which such testimony is based, but practicalities of proof do not require such party to negative all possibility of substitution or tampering and he need only establish that it is reasonably certain that substitution, alteration, or tampering did not occur. Eisentrager v. State (Nev) 378 P2d 526.” Annot., 21 A. L.R. 2d 451 (1970).
The police investigation in this case was expeditious and thorough. The record reflects that little more than two hours elapsed between the commission of the crime, the identification of the perpetrator, the arrest of the defendant, the hospitalization of the victim and the processing, numbering and sealing of physical evidence. All clothing taken from either the defendant or the victim was packaged, sealed, numbered and initialed, and the notations thereon show that it was all done on February 4, 1969, the date of the offense. A number of police cars and officers responded when the victim reported the rape. Some accompanied the defendant to jail and some the ambulance that took the victim to the hospital. It is clear a determination was made that, for the protection of both the Commonwealth and the accused, the clothing of the defendant and the victim should be removed, examined and analyzed. This was done routinely. The clothing of defendant was removed at the city jail. The clothing of the victim and pubic hairs were obviously removed at the hospital. The officers testified that there was no contact between the two.
As was pointed out in Annot., 21 A. L. R. 2d 1219 (1952):
“The basic question is whether a thing (1) analyzed or examined by an expert in his laboratory or (2) produced in court as a basis *143for his demonstrations before the jury can be shown to have been taken from a particular human body. Proof of this identity involves showing in the first class of cases that (a) the thing was taken (b) from the particular body from which it was supposed to be taken, and that thereafter it was properly (c) kept and, if necessary, (d) transported and (e) delivered to the expert who made the analysis or examination; and in the second class that like care was exercised until the thing was produced in court.”
The evidence in the instant case meets the foregoing standard, establishes with reasonable certainty that there was no substitution, alteration or tampering with the 'exhibits, and was properly admitted for consideration by the jury.
I would affirm the conviction of the defendant.
I’ Anson, J., joins in this dissent.