State v. Campbell, 40A84

• Decision Date: 06 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 40A84,40A84
• Citation: 311 N.C. 386,317 S.E.2d 391
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. James Harold CAMPBELL.

Page 391

317 S.E.2d 391

311 N.C. 386

STATE of North Carolina v. James Harold CAMPBELL.

No. 40A84.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 6, 1984.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by James Peeler Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.

Robert L. Gunn, Pittsboro, for defendant-appellant.

MITCHELL, Justice.

The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a "rape kit" prepared by a physician who examined the victim shortly after the rape occurred. The defendant contends that the State failed to establish a chain of custody for the kit between the time of its preparation and the time its contents were analyzed by a forensic serologist employed by the State Bureau of Investigation. We find no error in the admission of the kit into evidence.

A detailed recitation of the facts of this case is unnecessary for a discussion of the issue raised on appeal. The evidence tended to show that on June 11, 1983 the defendant, aged twenty-three, engaged in vaginal and anal intercourse with the nine-year-old victim, his stepdaughter. He threatened that he would "kill and drown" her if she told anyone what had happened. The child reported what had happened to relatives on the following day. The child was taken to North Carolina Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill later that day where she was examined by Dr. Larry Cobb Mickens, a senior resident pediatrician. Mickens observed lacerations in the child's genital and rectal areas which were consistent with the child's having engaged in intercourse with an adult male. Mickens took hair and blood samples from the child and vaginal and rectal smears and swabs. After completing necessary paperwork, he placed the evidence obtained in a cylindrical container called a "rape kit" which was marked and sealed in his presence and placed in a refrigerator nearby.

A forensic serologist testified that blood stains found on the bedspread upon which the rape allegedly occurred were consistent with the blood taken from the victim. Traces of semen found on the bedspread were consistent with that of a male having the defendant's blood groupings.

The defendant argues that the State failed to establish a chain of custody sufficient to allow the admission of either the rape kit or results obtained by analysis of its contents into evidence. He points to evidence showing that when Mickens prepared the kit, it was placed in a refrigerator around the corner from the emergency room where the examination took place. The defendant complains that there was no evidence about the location of the refrigerator and that there was no indication of whether the refrigerator was locked or unlocked. Mickens testified that on the morning following the preparation of the kit, he saw the kit in the hands of physicians and nurses interviewing the victim. The defendant notes that the hospital's chief security officer in charge of evidence was on vacation when the kit was prepared. That officer had no knowledge of the kit until his return from vacation eight days after its preparation when the kit finally came into his possession. The defendant argues that the failure of the State to demonstrate a chain of custody renders the evidence inadmissible. We find no merit in this assignment of error.

This Court has stated that a two-pronged test must be satisfied before real evidence is properly received into evidence. The item offered must be identified as being the same object involved in the incident and it must be shown that the object has undergone no material change. State v. Barfield, 298 N.C. 306, 259 S.E.2d 510 (1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 907, 100 S.Ct. 3050, 65 L.Ed.2d 1137, reh'g. denied, 448 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 41, 65 L.Ed.2d 1181 (1980). The trial court possesses and must exercise sound discretion in determining the standard of certainty that is required to show that an object offered is the same as the object involved in the incident and is in an unchanged condition. Id. A detailed chain of custody need be established only when the evidence offered is not readily identifiable or is susceptible to alteration and there is reason to believe that it may have been altered. See State v. Kistle, 59 N.C.App. 724, 297 S.E.2d 626 (1982), review denied, 307 N.C. 471, 298 S.E.2d 694 (1983). Further, any weak links in a chain of custody relate only to the weight to be given evidence and not to its admissibility. State v. Montgomery, 291 N.C. 91, 229 S.E.2d 572 (1976). See also State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 300 S.E.2d 351 (1983).

We hold that an adequate chain of custody was established in this case to prove that the samples in the rape kit examined by the SBI serologist were those placed in the kit by Mickens. The evidence showed that the samples were taken in Mickens' presence and that he signed various forms for inclusion in the rape kit...