Section 20.12 Chain of Custody Sufficient—Evidence of Drug Testing Admissible

• Library: Evidence 2017

1. (§20.12) Chain of Custody Sufficient—Evidence of Drug Testing Admissible

The following Missouri cases held that there was sufficient proof of chain of custody to allow admission of test results on controlled substances:

· State v. Reed, 789 S.W.2d 140, 143 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990). The officer testified that he had taken the packet containing the cocaine in his briefcase from the time of the crime until it was delivered to the laboratory. The chemist then testified that he followed the laboratory procedures for labeling, testing, and safekeeping of the evidence. Moreover, the chemist was able to identify the packet and its contents at trial. Id. at 143.

· State v. Dunagan, 772 S.W.2d 844, 854–56 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989). The court held that there was reasonable assurance that the State’s exhibit containing marijuana allegedly purchased by a police officer was in the same condition when tested at the laboratory, even though the police chief had taken some of the marijuana from the exhibit and later returned the marijuana.

· State v. McCrary, 478 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. 1972). The Court held that there was no break in the chain of custody when the officer who found heroin during a search initialed the evidence, placed it in the evidence envelope, and delivered it to the police laboratory, and the chemist testified that she obtained the envelope from the evidence locker and tested its contents.

· State v. Sullivan, 935 S.W.2d 747, 754–55 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996). The court held that there was sufficient proof of chain of custody regarding testing on marijuana even though the State did not produce the person who “signed in” the subject marijuana to the crime lab.

· State v. Webster, 539 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Mo. App. W.D. 1976). Proof of chain of custody of several bags of narcotics was adequate when delivered via multiple recipients, even though one recipient did not testify to his own receipt, because chain of custody was proven from testimony by another who made the delivery.

· State v. Davenport, 924 S.W.2d 6, 9 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). The court held that there was sufficient proof of chain of custody for admission of cocaine testing when the police officer identified the bag containing the defendant’s name and the date of the transaction in which the police officer purchased the cocaine from the defendant, despite the fact that the time of sale was not written on the bag and the incorrect transaction number was written on the bag.

· State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940, 944 (Mo...