Meeks v. State, 57609
| Decision Date | 05 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57609,57609 |
| Citation | 257 S.E.2d 27,150 Ga.App. 170 |
| Parties | MEEKS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Paul S. Weiner, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Beverly B. Hayes, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of selling marijuana in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish the chain of custody of the alleged contraband with reasonable certainty.
The undercover officer to whom the sale was made testified that he placed the substance in a locked briefcase, where he kept it for the next week or two until he delivered it to the State Crime Laboratory. He stated that, since the sale had occurred over two years prior to trial, he could not recall what type of container the substance had been stored in. Apparently, he made no notes subsequent to the sale by which he might have refreshed his recollection, nor did he mark the container so as to identify it as having come from the defendant. The officer testified that there may have been other marijuana stored inside his briefcase during this period of time due to purchases from other persons. The State Crime Laboratory destroyed the evidence prior to trial because it was over two years old. Held :
Since the suspected marijuana and its container were fungible items, i. e., they were not identifiable by their own characteristic appearance, the test results were not admissible and had no probative value absent other evidence sufficient to show with reasonable certainty that the substance tested was the same as the substance seized. See Patterson v. State, 224 Ga. 197, 199, 160 S.E.2d 815 (1968); Painter v. State, 237 Ga. 30, 33, 226 S.E.2d 578 (1976); Gordon v. State, 145 Ga.App. 820, 244 S.E.2d 914 (1978). There was no such evidence in this case. The container of marijuana was never marked, the officer could not recall what it looked like, and there may have been other such containers in his briefcase. Rather than make a prompt, written memorandum of the transaction, which is an elementary procedure in good law enforcement work, the officer attempted to retain the essential facts entirely by memory over a 2-year period. As a result of these factors the record before us does not establish with any semblance of certainty that the substance delivered to the crime lab came from the defendant rather than from some other source.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnston
...to the Defendant on October 28, 1979, be and is hereby suppressed in any criminal trial of this Defendant." 2 Meeks v. State, 150 Ga.App. 170, 257 S.E.2d 27 (1979). 3) Those portions of Johnston's motion to suppress alleging non-compliance with Code Ann. § 68A-902.1 or regulations of the De......
-
Davidson v. State, A02A1081.
...in weights here to be material. Langham v. State, 196 Ga.App. 71(1), 395 S.E.2d 345 (1990). Davidson also relies on Meeks v. State, 150 Ga.App. 170, 257 S.E.2d 27 (1979). There "[t]he container of marijuana was never marked, the officer could not recall what it looked like, and there may ha......
-
Murrell v. State, 65332
...assurance they were in fact the same. See in this connection Painter v. State, 237 Ga. 30, 33, 226 S.E.2d 578. Compare Meeks v. State, 150 Ga.App. 170, 257 S.E.2d 27. Here there was more evidence than that shown in Meeks to establish an unbroken chain of custody to authorize the admission o......
-
Lewis v. State
...as that which he received from appellant. See Edwards v. State, 164 Ga.App. 663, 297 S.E.2d 105 (1982). Compare Meeks v. State, 150 Ga.App. 170, 257 S.E.2d 27 (1979). The circumstances relied upon by appellant in support of this enumeration relate only to the mere possibility of a break in ......