State v. Hatcher
Decision Date | 05 August 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 4604.,4604. |
Citation | 681 S.E.2d 925,384 S.C. 372 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Ricky L. HATCHER, Appellant. |
Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for respondent.
Ricky L. Hatcher appeals his conviction and sentence for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a park. He argues the trial court erred in admitting drug evidence for which the State failed to prove the chain of custody and in misstating to the jury the State's burden of proof. We reverse and remand.
On October 6, 2006, a confidential police informant purchased forty dollars' worth of crack cocaine from Hatcher. Two police officers followed the informant and maintained visual contact with him as he traveled to meet Hatcher. The informant wore a concealed microphone and made the purchase with money the police provided. The drugs were tied up in two small plastic baggies, which the informant concealed in his mouth before leaving Hatcher's home.1 Maintaining one-way radio contact with police, the informant left Hatcher's home by a different route than he had arrived, met his police contacts, and delivered the drugs to them.
Officer Jeffrey Locklear accepted the drugs from the informant, placed the baggies in a plastic evidence bag, sealed the bag, and wrote certain identifying information on it. At trial, Officer Locklear testified he placed the evidence bag in a "BEST kit" plastic bag for processing by the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED). Officer Locklear transported the BEST kit to SLED. Agent Marjorie Wilson, a SLED chemist, testified she received the BEST kit from SLED's Log-In Department, processed the drugs, and returned them in a newly sealed bag to SLED's Log-In Department. Officer Locklear testified the evidence was returned to him in a heat-sealed bag that he brought to trial.
At trial, Hatcher objected to the admission of the drugs into evidence because the State failed to establish a complete chain of custody. The trial court overruled Hatcher's objection, noting the drugs remained sealed in the bags identified by the witnesses and a substantial chain of custody was established. The jury convicted Hatcher of both offenses and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 293, 376 S.E.2d 773, 774 (1989). "On appeal, the question presented is whether the trial court's decision is controlled by an error of law or is without evidentiary support." State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23, 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct.App.2004). If any evidence supports the trial court's decision, the appellate courts will affirm it. Id.
Hatcher contends the trial court erred in admitting the drug evidence when the State failed to establish a complete chain of custody. We agree.
"[A] party offering into evidence fungible items such as drugs or blood samples must establish a complete chain of custody as far as practicable." State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 6, 647 S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007). When "the substance analyzed has passed through several hands the evidence must not leave it to conjecture as to who had it and what was done with it between the taking and the analysis." Benton v. Pellum, 232 S.C. 26, 33-34, 100 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1957) (quoting Rodgers v. Commonwealth, 197 Va. 527, 90 S.E.2d 257, 260 (1955)). However, each person who handled the evidence is not required to testify. Sweet, 374 S.C. at 7, 647 S.E.2d at 206.2 When "other evidence establishes the identity of those who have handled the evidence and reasonably demonstrates the manner of handling of the evidence, our courts have been willing to fill gaps in the chain of custody due to an absent witness." Id. Nevertheless, evidence is inadmissible under this rule when the offering party omitted a link in the chain of possession by failing to establish the identity of each custodian at least as far as practicable. State v. Governor, 362 S.C. 609, 612, 608 S.E.2d 474, 475 (Ct.App.2005).
First, the State argues Hatcher's objection at trial does not specifically mention the whereabouts of the drugs during the 276-day period between the purchase and the analysis, a matter he now complains of on appeal. However, we believe his objection was sufficiently specific to identify the grounds for the trial court. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (). Hatcher objected:
Your Honor, I have not heard any testimony about where the drugs were located in-between the alleged buy on October the 6th, 2006, and when it was transported to SLED. I don't know where it was kept. I have not heard anything about where at SLED—Ms.—Ms. Wilson says that she got it from Log-In, she analyzed it, she took it back to Log-In. I don't think there's really been a complete chain of custody here, and I would object to the drugs being entered into as evidence.
Hatcher's point was the State failed to establish each link in its chain of custody. The trial court clearly understood this point and ruled:
Having determined the issue was adequately preserved, we now turn to the merits. Officer Locklear and Agent Wilson both acted as custodians of the evidence. However, neither is directly linked to the other by testimony or documentary evidence. The party who received the evidence at SLED is not identified and the State presented no testimony regarding how the evidence was handled while in Officer Locklear's possession or once it was surrendered at SLED. Officer Wilson testified she received the evidence from the Log-In Department, but that is the extent of her testimony regarding how the evidence came to be in her custody. The record does not reveal the date the evidence was left at SLED or where it was stored pending Officer Wilson's receipt and analysis more than eight months after the undercover drug buy.3
While the chain of custody is only required to be established as far as is reasonably practicable, South Carolina courts have consistently held that all persons in the chain of custody must be identified and the manner of handling the evidence must be demonstrated.4 Sweet, 374 S.C. at 7-8, 647 S.E.2d at 206-07 ( ); State v. Cribb, 310 S.C. 518, 522, 426 S.E.2d 306, 309 (1992) ( ); Raino v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 309 S.C. 255, 258, 422 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1992) ( ); State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 27-28, 598 S.E.2d 735, 739 (Ct.App.2004) ( ); State v. Joseph, 328 S.C. 352, 364-65, 491 S.E.2d 275, 281-82 (Ct.App.1997) ( ). These requirements are not met in this case.
The confidential informant, Officer Locklear, and Officer Wilson all testified the drug evidence had not been tampered with between its procurement from Hatcher and its receipt and analysis. However, evidence the drugs had not been tampered with is not sufficient to overcome missing links in the chain of custody. See State v. Chisolm, 355 S.C. 175, 584 S.E.2d 401 (Ct.App.2003) (overruled on other grounds by Taylor, 360 S.C. at 27, 598 S.E.2d at 739). In Chisolm, the trial court admitted drug evidence when the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v. Hatcher
...for Respondent.Justice BEATTY. This Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review State v. Hatcher, 384 S.C. 372, 681 S.E.2d 925 (Ct.App.2009), in which the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and sentence of Ricky L. Hatcher on drug charges on the ground the St......
-
Hatcher v. Knowlin
...which the State failed to prove the chain of custody and in misstating to the jury the State's burden of proof. See State v. Hatcher, 681 S.E.2d 925, 926 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009). The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed Petitioner's conviction and remanded the case, finding that the State ......
-
Singh v. City of Greenville
...Amrik Singh and SBPS, Inc. d/b/a Travel Inn, Respondents,v.City of Greenville, Appellant.Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-227THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ... In The Court of AppealsHeard: March 15, 2012 Filed: April 18, 2012THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ... ...
-
Singh v. City of Greenville
... ... § 2-195(a)(2) (imposing on the City Manager the duty to ... "[s]ee that the ordinances of the city and the laws of ... the state are enforced therein"); City of Columbia ... v. Abbott, 269 S.C. 504, 508, 238 S.E.2d 177, 179 (1977) ... ("It is generally held that the ... ...