Martin v. State
Decision Date | 05 March 1993 |
Citation | 616 So.2d 384 |
Parties | Charles Lee MARTIN v. STATE. CR 91-1828. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles Lee Martin, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Harry Lyles and Andrew Redd, Dept. of Corrections, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, Charles Lee Martin, challenges his 1992 prison disciplinary for violating the prison rule prohibiting consumption of narcotics.
The petitioner alleges that his due process rights were violated because 1) at the hearing, the chain of custody of his urine sample was not proven, 2) he was not provided with the "chain of custody form" prior to or at the disciplinary hearing, 3) the hearing officer was not authorized to administer oaths, 4) the hearing officer was not competent, without the assistance of a judge or psychologist, to determine whether the petitioner was competent to represent himself at the disciplinary hearing, and 5) a requested witness, Lt. Thomas, was not present to testify at the hearing. We consider issues 3), 4), and 5) to be without merit and we reject them without discussion after careful consideration.
We hold that where an inmate has been charged with the use of a controlled substance in a prison disciplinary action, a proper chain of custody of any urine sample taken for drug testing purposes must be established by either oral and/or documentary evidence where those results are introduced in evidence against the inmate.
The disciplinary report shows that the arresting officer, Hollis George, testified that he had collected a urine specimen from the petitioner CR. 12. Officer Quarker testified that the specimen tested positive for marijuana. However, the record shows that the appellant asked the following questions: CR. 14. The petitioner received the following response: "Inmates are not provided chain of evidence." (Emphasis in original.) CR. 14.
A copy of the Board of Corrections "Institutional Incident Report," signed by Officer George, reflects the following:
"At approximately 2:22 p.m. inmate Martin's specimen tested positive for marijuana." CR. 35.
Although this report and the "chain of custody form" are contained in the record, as best this Court can determine, neither were introduced into evidence or read into the record at the disciplinary hearing.
In Alabama, Heidelburg v. State, 522 So.2d 337, 339 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (emphasis in original).
In deciding that a prison disciplinary committee must make a determination of the credibility and reliability of an unidentified informant before relying on the information provided by that informant, the Eleventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals noted:
Kyle v. Hanberry, 677 F.2d 1386, 1390-91 (11th Cir.1982). We find these principles applicable here in connection with the necessity of proving a chain of custody in order to ensure the credibility and reliability of a tested urine sample.
Here, the test results were the only evidence presented to convict the accused of consumption of marijuana. Byerly v. Ashley, 825 S.W.2d 286, 287 (Ky.App.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 934, 113 S.Ct. 364, 121 L.Ed.2d 277 (1992).
Wykoff v. Resig, 613 F.Supp. 1504, 1512-14 (N.D.Ind.1985).
In Bourgeois v. Murphy, 119 Idaho 611, 809 P.2d 472, 482 (1991), it was held that "[t]he Wolff minimum due process standard requires that prison officials document in writing the chain of custody of urine samples taken for drug testing purposes."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. McBride
...Lord, 693 F.Supp. 8, 19 (S.D.N.Y.1988); as have state courts in Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, and New York. See Martin v. State, 616 So.2d 384, 387 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Works v. State, 575 So.2d 622, 624 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Driver v. State, 576 So.2d 675, 677 (Ala.Crim. App.1991); Mar......
-
Sweatt v. Vannatta, No. 3:01cv0520 AS (N.D. Ind. 1/23/2002)
...F. Supp. 1560, 1570 (C.D.Cal. 1987); as have state courts in Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, and New York. See Martin v. State, 616 So.2d 384, 387 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993); Works v. State, 575 So.2d 622, 624 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991); Driver v. State, 576 So.2d 675, 677 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991); Mart......
-
Holloway v. Vannatta, No. 3:02cv0313 AS (N.D. Ind. 7/31/2002)
...F. Supp. 1560, 1570 (C.D.Cal. 1987); as have state courts in Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, and New York. See Martin v. State, 616 So.2d 384, 387 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993); Works v. State, 575 So.2d 622, 624 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991); Driver v. State, 576 So.2d 675, 677 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991); Mart......
-
Ex Parte Shabazz
...custody be proved for evidence introduced against a defendant, during his disciplinary proceeding. Shabazz asserts that Martin v. State, 616 So.2d 384 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), and Davis v. State, 648 So.2d 658 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), clearly hold that, at a prison-disciplinary hearing in which an ......