People v. Julian
| Decision Date | 24 February 1977 |
| Citation | 392 N.Y.S.2d 610,41 N.Y.2d 340,360 N.E.2d 1310 |
| Parties | , 360 N.E.2d 1310 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael JULIAN, also known as Casto Ramos, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Diana A. Steele and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York City (Charles H. Solomon and Peter L. Zimroth, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The only issue of importance on this appeal is whether the prosecution established an adequate chain of custody to support the admissibility of various drugs seized pursuant to a valid search warrant. We conclude that the narcotics were properly admitted into evidence and would, therefore, affirm the order of the Appellate Division.
On the evening of February 12, 1970, three plainclothes police officers executed a search warrant on apartment 3A of 2534 Broadway in Manhattan. The actual search was preceded by a brief struggle with the occupant of the apartment, defendant Michael Julian. The officers testified that they discovered packages of suspected drugs at various places throughout the apartment. A small plastic bag of white powder was found on top of a dresser. In the center of the bedroom floor was a shopping bag filled with green vegetable matter resembling marijuana. Eighteen other packets of white powder were found either behind the refrigerator or under the sink. Finally, a rubber bag of white powder was discovered in the pocket of a jacket. Officer Tasik collected the various items and placed them into two small suitcases that were also found in the apartment. He then took the material to his station house, where he sealed the suitcases and deposited them with the property clerk. The following day, Officer Tasik personally took the suitcases to the police narcotics laboratory for chemical analysis of the contents. There, Sergeant Roger Fleming weighed and tested the material. Each of the packages was found to contain illegal drugs. Sergeant Fleming placed a seal on each of the packages and wrote his initials, the date, and the police laboratory number on each seal. The drugs were then placed back into the suitcases and remained at the laboratory until March 4, 1970, at which time Officer Tasik reclaimed the evidence for presentment to the Grand Jury. At the end of the day, Tasik gave the items to the police property clerk for safekeeping in the property clerk's vault.
While awaiting trial and free on bail, the defendant absconded from the jurisdiction. Consequently, his trial was delayed for two years until defendant was recaptured. When Officer Tasik finally had occasion to retrieve the evidence in October, 1973, he discovered that it had been taken from the property clerk's vault to the police laboratory for reanalysis. The evidence was found to have been at the laboratory at least since February 7, 1973, when Detective Carmine Diorio had performed a second chemical analysis. As part of a general investigation into the theft of drugs from police vaults, the police commissioner had ordered the reinventory and reanalysis of all drugs held by the property clerk to determine whether any amounts had been stolen. The 1973 reanalysis confirmed that each package contained an illegal substance, with slight weight variations from the prior examination. However, all of the variations fell within the range of expected deviation. Expert testimony indicated that the weight differences could be explained by a change in weighing techniques, weight losses associated with the testing procedure, and the varying tendency to either gain or lose moisture depending on the nature of the substance and the type of packaging. Officer Diorio testified that he reopened the packages without disturbing the identification seals from the first analysis. Upon completing his reanalysis, Diorio resealed each exhibit with a different seal, placed them back into the suitcases and sealed those cases with a tape that he initialed. At trial, Diorio identified the suitcases and recognized that the tape placed around the suitcases had not been disturbed. Similarly, he recognized his seal on each of the individual packages and stated that their condition appeared to be unchanged. The original analyst, Officer Fleming, testified at trial that the packages appeared to be in the same condition as when he last saw them.
Defendant does not dispute that a chain of custody was established from the time of seizure to the deposit with the property clerk on March 4, 1970, and again from the reanalysis of February 7, 1973 to the time of trial. Sometime between March 4, 1970 and February 7, 1973, however, the drugs were transferred by an unknown individual from the property clerk's safe to, eventually, the chemical laboratory. Thus, the record contains no precise proof of the day-by-day location of the drugs during that period. Defendant contends that this gap in the chain of custody renders this real evidence inadmissible. To emphasize the danger of tampering, he argues that if Detective Diorio could reopen the packages without breaking the seals from the earlier analysis, an outsider with access...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clawson
...was inadmissible, because it did not 'accurately portray a relevant and material element of the case' (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 342, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 612, 360 N.E.2d 1310, 1311.)" 67 A.D.2d at 805-06, 413 N.Y.S.2d at It is generally recognized that scientific tests that are relevan......
-
Gonzalez-Pena v. Herbert
...the circumstances provide reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition' of the evidence." People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310 (1977) (quoting Amaro v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 30, 386 N.Y.S.2d 19, 351 N.E.2d 665 (1976)). Furthermore, both F......
-
McPherson v. Greiner
...of custody is one, but not the exclusive, method for showing the authenticity of an item of real evidence. People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 612-13 (1977); People v. Connelly, 35 N.Y.2d 171, 174, 359 N.Y.S.2d 266, 269 (1974). "[F]ailure to establish a chain of custody ......
-
People v. Bautista
...as the responding police officer specifically described and identified the nonfungible clothing (see People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310 [1977] ; People v. Shoga, 89 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 933 N.Y.S.2d 126 [2011], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 886, 939 N.Y.S.2d 756, 9......
-
Table of cases
...398 (1st Dept. 1997), § 10:30 People v. Juan, 153 Misc.2d 400, 589 N.Y.S.2d 256 (Sup. Ct., Bronx County, 1992), § 17:90 People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610 (1977), §§ 9:70, 9:80 People v . Kadarko, 14 N.Y.3d 426, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828 (2010), § 20:20 People v. Kagan, 101 Misc.2d 27......
-
Real evidence
...of real evidence, you must show the following: he item is relevant to an issue that you seek to prove or disprove. People v. Julian , 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610 (1977); People v. Wallace , 59 A.D.3d 1069, 873 N.Y.S.2d 403 (4th Dept. 2009); for objections based on relevance, see Ch. 4......
-
Real evidence
...of real evidence, you must show the following: The item is relevant to an issue that you seek to prove or disprove. People v. Julian , 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610 (1977); People v. Wallace , 59 A.D.3d 1069, 873 N.Y.S.2d 403 (4th Dept. 2009); for objections based on relevance, see Ch. ......
-
Real evidence
...of real evidence, you must show the following: he item is relevant to an issue that you seek to prove or disprove. People v. Julian , 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610 (1977); People v. Wallace , 59 A.D.3d 1069, 873 N.Y.S.2d 403 (4th Dept. 2009); for objections based on relevance, see Ch. 4......