Brady v. State

The trial court properly admitted methamphetamine the defendant sold to an undercover agent on three separate days, despite the lack of testimony from the evidence technicians, who transported the evidence to the crime lab, since evidence showed with reasonable certainty that the substance tested was the same as that seized.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Kenneth Scott Brady guilty of three counts of sale of methamphetamine and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Brady appeals, alleging the trial court erred in allowing the crime lab witness to testify without a proper showing of chain of custody. We disagree and affirm Brady’s convictions. When there is an issue as to the chain of custody, the reviewing court must determine whether the state established with reasonable certainty that the evidence examined is the same as that seized and there has been no tampering or substitution.1 Brady argues that although the state crime lab technician testified that the evidence was transported to the crime lab by Misty Howell, he did not testify how he knew that fact and Howell did not testify. However, the fact that one of the persons in charge of the evidence does not testify at trial does not, without more, make the substance or testimony relating to it inadmissible.2

In the present case, Brady sold methamphetamine to an undercover agent on three separate days. At the end of each of the sales, the undercover agent met with a supervising deputy who was monitoring nearby to turn in the drugs collected. After each transaction, the supervisor placed the drugs into an evidence bag, sealed the bag, placed his initials on the bag and placed the bag in a safe in the narcotics office the same day. He subsequently turned the drugs over to the evidence custodian. The supervisor testified that after the first transaction on January 5, 2005, he placed the drugs into the narcotics’ office safe and turned these drugs over to Sergeant Bobby Martin, one of the evidence custodians, the next day, January 6, 2005. After the second transaction on January 11, 2005, the supervisor placed the drugs into the narcotics’ office safe where they remained until January 26, 2005. After the final sale on January 19, 2005, the supervisor placed the drugs into the narcotics’ safe until January 26, 2005, when he gave the drugs from both the January 11 and January 19 sales to Martin.

Brady v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report