Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court held that 10 Del. C. §§ 4331–4332 unambiguously require the State, upon a timely defense demand, to produce the specifically designated chain-of-custody witnesses, including the seizing and packaging officer. Because the State presented a substitute officer instead of the required officer, the admission of the forensic chemist’s testimony and report was reversible error, and the drug-related convictions were reversed and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 10 Del. C. §§ 4331 and 4332 required the State, after a timely written demand, to produce the specifically identified seizing and packaging officer as a prosecution witness.
- Whether a substitute officer whose testimony could satisfy Delaware Rule of Evidence 901(a) authentication requirements could replace the statutory chain-of-custody witness.
- Whether the admission of the forensic chemist's testimony and report without the appearance of the demanded seizing and packaging officer required reversal of the drug convictions.
Holdings
- Under the plain language of 10 Del. C. §§ 4331 and 4332, a timely demand requires the State to produce the seizing officer, the packaging officer if different, and the forensic toxicologist, forensic chemist, or other person who actually touched the controlled substance as prosecution witnesses.
- Although D.R.E. 901(a) remains the general authentication rule, satisfying that rule does not excuse the State's independent obligation to comply with Sections 4331 and 4332 or permit the State to substitute a different witness for a specifically demanded chain-of-custody witness.
- Because the State failed to produce Corporal Lynch, the seizing and packaging officer identified by Hairston's timely demand, it was reversible error to admit the forensic chemist's testimony and report; Hairston's aggravated-possession-of-heroin and possession-of-marijuana convictions must be reversed.
Key quotations
“The one imposition on the State, according to the plain language of Section 4332, is a mandatory obligation to produce at trial upon the defendant’s request the individuals that the legislature has defined in Section 4331 as the “chain of custody.”” (13)
“By their plain terms, Sections 4331 and 4332 do not contemplate or permit the substitution of another witness in the place of the specifically identified witnesses, even if that witness might, in the absence of Subchapter III, be an appropriate authentication or chain of custody witness under D.R.E. 901(a).” (13-14)
“Where, as in Subchapter III, the General Assembly has unambiguously granted a criminal defendant the right to demand the presence at trial of certain specified individuals, our role is not to override or create an exception to that right.” (17)
Factual background
Police stopped Hairston's SUV after observing unlawful window tint and a turn without signaling. During the stop, officers observed a bag containing a powdery substance and later recovered that substance and marijuana from the vehicle. Hairston fled during the search, and Corporal Lynch, who was the seizing and packaging officer, was unavailable because he was on medical leave. Hairston timely demanded the presence of the statutory chain-of-custody witnesses, but the Superior Court permitted Corporal Bartolo to testify in Lynch's place.
Procedural history
Hairston was indicted on aggravated possession of heroin, possession of marijuana, resisting arrest, and motor-vehicle offenses. Before trial, he demanded under 10 Del. C. § 4332 the presence of all persons involved in the chain of custody. Because the seizing and packaging officer was on medical leave, the Superior Court allowed another officer to testify in his place and admitted the forensic chemist's testimony and report. The jury convicted Hairston, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the drug convictions and remanded.
Remand instructions
Reverse the Superior Court's judgment as to the convictions for aggravated possession of heroin and possession of marijuana and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion.