Court Opinion

ID: 9544588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:57:21.236654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:15.096014
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
Although I agree that the question of entrapment does not exist in this case, I must respectfully dissent in accordance with Conde-Hernandez v. State, 565 P.2d 705 (Okl.Cr.1977), in which this Court held that an unexplained time gap of ten (10) days and an unknown method of transportation resulted in an inadequate establishment of chain of custody.
For the State Agent to merely say that he left the drugs in his briefcase in the trunk of his car during a thirteen (13) day period, justifying this delay because he was working on other cases, and failing to explain why he didn’t deliver the drugs to the State Bureau on one of his numerous trips to Oklahoma City during that time is .inexcusable. The inadequately explained time gap in this case is as defective as the unexplained gap in Conde-Hernandez. Furthermore, although the method of transporting the contraband was unexplained in - the precedent case, I believe that the alleged presence of the drugs in this case in the trunk of the Agent’s car from August 24 to September 6,1978, fails equally as to transportation.
Admissibility of evidence must be based on the proper foundation, one essential element of which is the establishment of, a chain of custody. To hold otherwise is to invite abuse by law enforcement and to abrogate the due process rights of a defendant.