Court Opinion

ID: 9719075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:42:04.157077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.466320
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: A failure to provide discovery is not a denial of a constitutional right under the due process clause. (United States v. Augenblick (1969), 393 U.S. 348, 356, 21 L. Ed. 2d 537, 545, 89 S. Ct. 528.) That case concerns certain recordings of interviews which were lost and could not be supplied for purposes of discovery. One finds that the highest courts in several states have determined that the exhaustion of the supply of a narcotic or controlled substance is not a valid basis for excluding the State’s analysis of the samples available as a denial of due process. Lee v. State (Alas. 1973), 511 P.2d 1076; State v. Cloutier (Me. 1973), 302 A.2d 84; Poole v. State (Miss. 1974), 291 So.2d 723; State v. Lightle (1972), 210 Kan. 415, 502 P.2d 834. In terms of the consideration of the record, the principal opinion has departed from the literal reading of the stipulation as to defendant’s admission of the nature of the substance. While the stipulation recites that the State laboratory could have performed the same test with .01 grams of the substance, the limited record of the cross-examination attached to support the stipulation suggests that the stipulation is but partially correct. This case is actually distinguishable from People v. Taylor (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 454, 369 N.E.2d 573, wherein the court concluded that the substance received was “unnecessarily consumed.” In Taylor, the .5 of a gram of substance was apparently purchased by undercover agents as heroin. The initial, and probably the sole test required, was to verify the substance as heroin. One-half of the substance was consumed in such identification test and the other half was consumed in determining its quality. It was the latter test which the court declared unnecessary. Here, the quantity was 6 percent of the amount in Taylor. This record suggests that a packet of an unidentified powder was found incident to search upon another arrest. We find no initial or tentative identification of the nature of the substance at that time. The transcript of the chemist’s testimony presented as the only evidence upon the issue of negligence in testing and in support of the stipulation is limited to the cross-examination of the chemist witness concerning the sensitivity of the gas chromatograph that “it would not surprise me [the witness] to be able to detect MDA at a concentration of .01 [of a gram].” From such the defendant argues that we must therefore conclude that there was gross negligence in using the entire quantity, i.e., the .03 grams to complete the test. The argument requires an assumption that the gas chromatograph was the only one to be made. In fact, the witness’ answer was, “That was the final test, yes.” It is apparent that unlike the circumstances in Taylor, the analyst here could not simply undertake to verify the substance as MDA by the gas chromatograph test. Rather, he would have to proceed to perform his tests in the context of a complete unknown. In State v. Cloutier (Me. 1973), 302 A.2d 84, 87, the court noted: “A very different practical problem is posed for the Court’s resolution when the State has in its possession as evidence a very small quantity of a substance which will be destroyed, exhausted, substantially diminished or chemically altered by chemical analysis. With the great increase in cases involving the unlawful sale or possession of drugs, this becomes a matter of great importance. Obviously, what is reasonable’ in such cases will vary markedly from case to case. So also will the nature of the court orders if the court is to preserve a fair and just balance as between the legitimate interests of the defendant and the practical necessity of protecting and preserving the State’s evidence.” In Cloutier, the evidence consisted of one tablet of LSD, three-fourths of which was consumed in testing. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for an independent test of the remaining one-fourth tablet and was affirmed. There are practical problems illustrated here which are not solved in the opinion citation of Sarver v. Barrett Ace Hardware, Inc. (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 454, 349 N.E.2d 28, which concerned protective orders to be entered in civil discovery cases. Here, the police obtained the unidentified substance in the latter part of August 1976. It was delivered to the laboratory on August 30. The laboratory report was dated October 8, 1976, and the complaint was filed on that date with service of warrant on the 9th of October. There is no present statutory procedure or rule for the entry of protective orders as to criminals who have not been and cannot be charged until the substance has been analyzed. The opinion holds that by reason of this record the evidence of the chemical analysis was at trial and is hereinafter inadmissible and states a conclusion that destructive testing “ordinarily occurs * * * from lack of sensitivity to defendant’s right to perform independent tests.” The tests were performed in September or October 1976. This case was tried in March 1977. The opinion in Taylor was published in November 1977. During the preparation and trial in those proceedings neither the trial judge nor counsel had access to the conclusions in that opinion concerning the burden of proof where the evidence was unavailable. The available legal standard concerning admissibility was that of Augenblick where the test was whether the evidence had been suppressed or the prosecution had not acted in good faith. In People v. Stamps (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 320, 367 N.E.2d 543, certain notes of statements had been lost between the initial trial and a retrial. Defendant contended that the charges should be dismissed or the testimony disallowed alleging gross negligence in maintenance of the records. This court affirmed the findings of the trial court that the prosecution had acted in good faith in keeping the records, although it had been negligent to some degree. That should be the standard here. We are presented with no record which suggests that the validity of the chemical identification was a genuine question of fact at trial. Defendant was presented with the report of the laboratory in discovery. This record does not show cross-examination or questions concerning the validity of the method of the analysis or the accuracy of the results. Upon that record presented it cannot even be said that the record shows any negligence in the conduct of the test. The trial court heard all of the evidence upon the issue and in the denial of defendant’s motion it is implicit that the court found no bad faith. In the light of the facts contrasting Taylor and the circumstance of the discovery of the quantity of MDA here, remanding for a new trial will doubtless be a useless gesture. The judgment below should be affirmed.