Court Opinion

ID: 9516253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:39:16.654221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:04.719955
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion in this case because I do not believe the foundation laid by the State for either the admission of the heroin exhibits themselves or expert testimony as to its chemical makeup was adequate to establish the necessary chain of possession.
There have been three cases handed down by this Court in recent years which have established the requirements of chain of possession. In the Graham case police records showed that the heroin exhibit had been removed from the property room by a police officer on one day and not returned until six days later by another officer. Neither officer testified at the trial and no explanation of the whereabouts of the exhibit in the intervening period was given. In that situation we held:
“Unless the State can show by producing records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least *470between the time it came into their possession until it was laboratory tested to determine its composition, testimony of the State as to the laboratory’s findings is inadmissible.” Graham v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 237, 255 N. E. 2d 652.
The case of Guthrie v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 356, 260 N. E. 2d 579, concerned vaginal smears which were delivered to the Indiana State Police Command Post in connection with a rape prosecution. The delivery was made by one testifying officer who stated he left the exhibits on the Post Commander’s desk at about midnight. No one was at the desk at the time and the Post was quiet. The next morning at 8:00 a.m. another testifying officer picked up the exhibit from the same place on the desk and took it to the laboratory for testing. The Court in that case stated:
“However, whereas here the State has introduced evidence which strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence the issue becomes one of probabilities.”
Most recently the Kolb decision concerned a packet of marijuana sent to the Indiana State Police Laboratory. The exhibit was analyzed in the property room but at an unknown time. Appellant complained that other persons had access to the property room but we held that a chain of custody was established because, “There is an explanation of presence of the exhibits for each day in question.” Kolb v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 469, 282 N. E. 2d 541.
It seems clear to me, therefore, that there has developed a two stage analysis of the chain of custody problem. The first stage is to establish the “exact whereabouts” of the exhibit during the time it was in police custody. If the whereabouts of the exhibit cannot be established for the entire time it was in police custody the evidence should be excluded at that point without further consideration. It is only when the location of the exhibit is clearly established that we need concern ourselves with “probabilities” as the majority states. In some instances the location of the exhibit would create a high *471probability if remained undisturbed. Guthrie v. State, supra. It is impossible to' weigh the probabilities of tampering, however, unless it can first be clearly established where the exhibit was at all times.
Turning to the facts in this appeal I do not believe this record can sustain the majority’s statement that, “The only time the exhibits were not under lock and key they were in the laboratory.” Sergeant Caine’s testimony concerning the location of the exhibits between the time he first removed it from the vault on December 28th and the testing on January 7th creates a ten day break in the location. At trial the evidence on this point was the following:
“Q. Have you performed any tests in the course of your duties on any of these capsules ?
A. Yes I have.
Q. When?
A. I removed the evidence from the narcotic vault on December 28, 1970, and I took it to the laboratory for testing. On January 7, 1971,1 tested it. . . .”
At this point defense counsel objected to the Sergeant reading from his notes. The objection was overruled and the Sergeant continued his testimony concerning the testing on January 7th. In my opinion this can only be viewed as a failure by the State to establish the location of the exhibit at all times. It is conjectural to state that this testimony esablishes that the exhibit remained in the lab during that period. The testimony leaves us without any information as to where it was and the failure to clearly establish the location at all times is a per se failure to establish a sufficient chain of custody. I believe the cases in Indiana hold that we should not be weighing the probability of tampering, as the majority attempts, unless we can first clearly establish where the exhibit was located.
I would further disagree with the treatment of the probabilities of tampering, even if we could establish the location of the exhibit as being in the laboratory at all times. There *472is no testimony as to what security arrangement existed in the laboratory; whether evidence was left in the open or locked up, or who had access to the laboratory during this time. There is a failure by the State to provide us with the circumstances surrounding the lab in order that we may weigh the factors involved and determined the probabilities of tampering.
In both the Guthrie and Graham opinions we stated that we must exercise special care in the custody problem when the exhibit is one of a fungible nature and where its nature is an essential element of the crime. The exhibit here is of that nature and I do not believe the State has met its burden of establishing the requisite foundation precedent to admission of these exhibits, particularly in light of the special care we should be exercising here.
Note.—Reported in 296 N. E. 2d 407.