State v. Carter

Decision Date26 March 2001
Docket NumberNo. 25266.,25266.
CitationState v. Carter, 544 S.E.2d 835, 344 S.C. 419 (S.C. 2001)
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Robert B. CARTER, Petitioner.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for petitioner.

Attorney GeneralCharles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney GeneralJohn W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy General Robert E. Bogan, and Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralCharles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

MOORE, Justice.

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' unpublished opinion affirming petitioner's convictions for first degree burglary, kidnaping, first degree criminal sexual conduct, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful use of a telephone.1Petitioner claims the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for the admission of a blood sample used to match his DNA with evidence found at the scene.We affirm.

FACTS

Victim lived alone in the owner's apartment of a small motel in Myrtle Beach.She testified that about 5:30 a.m. on December 3, 1994, she awoke to find a man on top of her in her bed.He put a pillowcase over her head and threatened to kill her while holding a cold metal instrument under her jaw that she thought was a gun.After giving her a choice between fellatio or intercourse, the assailant put his penis in Victim's mouth under the pillowcase.When he became dissatisfied with her performance, he masturbated into her mouth and insisted she swallow the semen.He then tied her up and left the apartment.

After freeing herself, Victim found a pocket-knife on her living room floor which she gave to police along with the pillowcase and the clothing she was wearing at the time of the assault.She did not see her assailant's face and could give police no identification.

About six weeks later, on the afternoon of January 14, 1995, Victim received a telephone call from an unidentified male who asked her, "Have you woken up with any [penises] in your mouth lately?"Victim recognized the voice as that of her assailant.She received a similar call ten days later in the early morning hours of January 24.On February 1, she received a third call that she recorded.She also traced the caller's telephone number.When Victim took this information to police, she listened to the recording with Detective Starr.Detective Starr told her the call came from a phone booth outside a nearby motel, the Lighthouse, and asked if she knew anyone living there.Victim recalled that petitioner, whom she knew because she was friendly with his parents,2 was living at the Lighthouse.She then identified the voice on the tape as petitioner's.

At trial, the State introduced the testimony of two police officers who saw petitioner in the vicinity of the phone booth outside the Lighthouse at approximately the time the third phone call was made.In addition, the State's expert testified that semen3 was found on the pillowcase given to police which matched petitioner's DNA as indicated by the blood sample taken from him before trial.

Petitioner's blood sample was drawn pursuant to a consent order requiring him to submit to blood and saliva sampling.Petitioner was escorted by police to the hospital where Dr. Proctor supervised the taking of blood and saliva samples which he testified were placed in a kit supplied by SLED.This kit was a cardboard box that had styrofoam containers in it to hold the glass tubes of blood.Dr. Proctor sealed the kit with a type of security tape that cannot be pulled off without leaving obvious signs of tampering.

Deputy Johnson, who witnessed the sampling,4 transported the taped kit to the Myrtle Beach Police Department and gave it to Detective Baker who gave it to the evidence custodian, Doug Britton.Officer Lail picked up the kit from Britton and transported it to SLED for testing.The kit was still taped when Lail gave it to SLED agent McKay.

Inexplicably, when Agent McKay opened the kit, it contained only the two tubes of petitioner's blood and no saliva sample.McKay broke down the kit and put the tubes of blood in a heat-sealed pouch with an I.D. bar code on it and placed the pouch in a secure refrigerator.

SLED analyst Reinhart retrieved the sealed pouch from the refrigerator for preliminary testing.Reinhart was able to determine petitioner was a non-secretor5 from his blood.The saliva sample was not needed.6Because petitioner's status as a non-secretor was consistent with the semen on the pillowcase, Reinhart forwarded the blood samples to SLED analyst Lambert for further analysis.Lambert made the DNA match.

Petitioner objected that the chain of custody for his blood sample, which provided the necessary evidence for the DNA match, was defective.He argued the fact that the kit did not contain a saliva sample when it was broken open by SLED agent McKay indicated a break in the chain of custody.The trial judge found there was nothing to indicate the integrity of the blood samples themselves had been compromised and admitted the evidence.

The Court of Appeals held the issue of the missing saliva sample went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility since the State established a continuous chain of custody.7

ISSUE

Did the State prove a sufficient chain of custody for the admission of petitioner's blood sample?

DISCUSSION

The State must prove a chain of custody for a blood sample from the time it is drawn until it is tested.State v. Smith,326 S.C. 39, 482 S.E.2d 777(1997).A complete chain of evidence must be established as far as practicable, tracing possession from the time the specimen is taken from the human body to the final custodian by whom it is analyzed.State v. Cribb,310 S.C. 518, 426 S.E.2d 306(1992);Raino v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.,309 S.C. 255, 422 S.E.2d 98(1992);State v. Kahan,268 S.C. 240, 233 S.E.2d 293(1977)(citingBenton v. Pellum,232 S.C. 26, 100 S.E.2d 534(1957)).Proof of chain of custody need not negate all possibility of tampering so long as the chain of possession is complete.State v. Williams,301 S.C. 369, 392 S.E.2d 181(1990).

In applying this rule, we have found evidence inadmissible only where there is a missing link in the chain of possession because the identity of those who handled the blood was not established at least as far as practicable.SeeState v. Cribb, supra;Raino v. Goodyear, supra;State v. Williams, supra;Benton v. Pellum, supra;see alsoState v. Joseph,328 S.C. 352, 491 S.E.2d 275(Ct.App.1997).On the other hand, where the identity of persons handling the specimen is established, we have found evidence regarding its care goes only to the weight of the specimen as credible...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
32 cases
  • Sc Dept. of Social Services v. Cochran
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 06, 2005
    ...have consistently held complete chain of evidence must be established as far as practicable, tracing possession from the time the specimen is taken from the human body to the final custodian by whom it is analyzed. State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 424, 544 S.E.2d 835, 837 (2001). However, we have never held the chain of custody rule requires every person associated with the procedure be available to testify or identified personally, depending on the facts of the case. In this case, every...
  • State v. Chisolm
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 02, 2003
    ...signatures. The evidence's whereabouts is unaccounted for between May 10 and June 15. While the chain of custody "need not negate all possibility of tampering," the State is required to show that the chain is complete. Carter, 344 S.C. at 424,544 S.E.2d at 837. Moreover, it would not have been impracticable for the State to have called each custodian to testify or for the State to have submitted sworn statements from the custodians under the procedures of Rule 6(b), SCRCrimP. See Stateand has not been established pursuant to Rule 6(b), SCRCrimP. A complete chain of evidence, tracing possession from the evidence's initial control to its final analysis, must be established as far as practicable. State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001). A missing link in a chain of custody creates an issue of admissibility. Id. If a substance has passed through multiple custodians, it must not be left to conjecture concerning who had the evidence and what waspossession from the evidence's initial control to its final analysis, must be established as far as practicable. State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001). A missing link in a chain of custody creates an issue of admissibility. Id. If a substance has passed through multiple custodians, it must not be left to conjecture concerning who had the evidence and what was done with it between the taking and the analysis. State v. Joseph, 328 S.C. 352, 491 S.E.2d...
  • State v. Hart
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 04, 2004
    ...distribution of cocaine, contending the trial court erred in admitting the cocaine into evidence due to alleged flaws in the chain of custody. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001) (holding evidence concerning the chain of custody should establish the chain as far as practicable, but need not negate all evidence of tampering as long as the chain is complete; in applying this rule, courts have...
  • State v. Pulley
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 06, 2018
    ...(2001). "In applying this rule, we have found evidence inadmissible only where there is a missing link in the chain of possession because the identity of those who handled the [substance] was not established at least as far as practicable ." Id . (Emphasis added.)Prior to Brewer being recalled by the State, the State had not established a sufficient chain of custody.6 Up to that point, the State presented testimony establishing that: 1). Craven seized the cocaine; 2). the cocainefill gaps in the chain of custody due to an absent witness." Id . at 7, 647 S.E.2d at 206."Proof of chain of custody need not negate all possibility of tampering so long as the chain of possession is complete." State v. Carter , 344 S.C. 419, 424, 544 S.E.2d 835, 837 (2001). "In applying this rule, we have found evidence inadmissible only where there is a missing link in the chain of possession because the identity of those who handled the [substance] was not established at least as...
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • A. Procedural Considerations
    • United States
    • Drug Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar) South Carolina Bar CLE
    ...647 S.E.2d 202 (2007).[17] State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 8, 647 S.E.2d 202, 206 (2007); State v. Trapp, 420 S.C. 217, 801 S.E.2d 742 (Ct. App. 2017).[18] State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001); accord State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 376 S.E.2d 773 (1989); State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 598 S.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 2004). [19] State v. Johnson, 318 S.C. 194,policy directives on evidence was the proper subject for cross-examination, but not a proper basis for suppression).[21] State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 647 S.E.2d 202 (2007); State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001); State v. Governor, 362 S.C. 609, 608 S.E.2d 474 (Ct. App. 2005); State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 25, 598 S.E.2d 735, 738 (Ct. App. 2004); State v. Johnson, 318 S.C. 194, 456...
  • C. Criminal Sexual Assault
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) South Carolina Bar CLE
    ...regular DNA as well as the advantages of the former. Council, at 17, 515 S.E.2d at 508. For consideration of the sufficiency of the chain of custody of the accused's blood sample on which the DNA analysis was conducted, see State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001). The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction in which DNA evidence was the only evidence connecting the defendant with the offense. The victim was unable to see her attacker and could...
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Drug Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar) South Carolina Bar CLE
    ...(Ct. App. 1996)..............................................256-257 State v. Carter, 324 S.C. 383, 478 S.E.2d 86 (Ct. App. 1996).......................................................249 State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001).............................................................217-218 State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249, 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971)................................................................... 48, 52...
  • A. Contraband
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) South Carolina Bar CLE
    ...of custody." Id. at 365, 494 S.E.2d at 281. It is important to note that Joseph objected to the use of the officer's affidavit and established other inconsistencies in the chain of custody. See also State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 544 S.E.2d 835 (2001) (evidence inadmissible where there is a missing link in chain of possession because identity of all handlers "was not established at least as far as practicable."). The role of confidential informers in the chain...