 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Greenlee11/6/2001
Appeal by defendant from judgment dated 5 January 2000 by Judge Loto G. Caviness in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 October 2001.
Chalmers Lowery Greenlee (Defendant) appeals a judgment dated 5 January 2000 and entered consistent with a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine and sale of cocaine, N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1) (1999), and of being a habitual felon, N.C.G.S. § 14-7.1 (1999).
On 9 June 1999, Asheville police officers Danny Holden (Holden) and Joseph Palmer were working undercover when Holden bought what he believed to be one rock of crack cocaine from Defendant. After placing the rock in a small piece of plastic, Holden drove away and radioed Defendant's description to another police car. Defendant was arrested almost immediately after his transaction with Holden.
Holden brought the evidence to the Asheville Police Department. He proceeded to weigh the rock and place it, along with the plastic wrap he had previously used to store the rock, into a clear zip-lock-type envelope. He dated and initialed the envelope and placed it inside a yellow narcotics evidence envelope (the evidence envelope), which he then sealed. Holden also completed an SBI-5 Request for Examination of Physical Evidence form (the request form). He placed the request form, along with the evidence envelope, in the drop box of the property control room of the Evidence Annex.
Sandra Burton (Burton), an Asheville Police Department evidence technician, delivered the evidence envelope to Nancy Somrak (Somrak), a State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) evidence technician, who in turn gave the evidence envelope to Special Agent and Forensic Chemist Jay Pintacuda (Pintacuda) for analysis of the substance within. Upon receipt and delivery, each individual signed their name in the chain of custody section of the request form.
The testing conducted by Pintacuda determined that the rock indeed consisted of cocaine, which Pintacuda noted in his laboratory report (the report). At trial, Holden stated he had been in law enforcement for seventeen years with approximately 500 hours of specialized training in narcotics investigation and experience working with the drug task force. During the course of his testimony, Holden at least five times referred to the substance he had bought from Defendant as a "rock of crack cocaine." Defendant did not object to the classification as "crack cocaine" until Holden's fourth reference. Both Holden and Pintacuda testified that the substance entered into evidence appeared to be in substantially the same condition as when they had last seen it.
Pintacuda also testified that he recognized Burton's and Somrak's signature on the chain of custody portion of the request form and that he had received the evidence envelope in a sealed condition.
The issues are whether: (I) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(g)-(g1) represents the exclusive procedure for authenticating a report on the chemical analysis of a controlled substance and for establishing chain of custody; and (II) the trial court erred in permitting Holden to testify that the substance he bought from Defendant was "crack cocaine."
I.
Defendant argues the State did not comply with the conditions set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(g)-(g1) and therefore the report determining the substance purchased from Defendant to be cocaine was inadmissible. We disagree.
Section 90-95(g) merely establishes a procedure through which the State may introduce into evidence the laboratory report of a chemical analysis conducted on an alleged controlled substance without further authent
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|