People v. Trice, 77 N.E.3d 1095

Background

On November 11, 2013, undercover Officer Michael Clemons purchased narcotics in a controlled buy; surveillance Officer Sal DiFranco observed a hand‑to‑hand transaction between defendant Sammy Trice and a middleman (Aleric Veal). Clemons testified he received two small bags containing a tan/brown substance and inventoried them as Inventory No. 13044995.\
The parties stipulated that forensic scientist Jason George received Inventory No. 13044995, tested the two items, found a total weight of 1.1 grams, and that the items tested positive for heroin; the stipulation also stated a chain of custody was maintained.\
The State introduced only three photo arrays into evidence; the actual drugs, packaging, and lab report were not introduced as exhibits and the chemist did not testify live.\
Defense emphasized an apparent discrepancy: officers described a “brown rock‑like/raw” substance, while the stipulation described a 1.1‑gram “powder,” arguing possible loss/tampering and challenging chain of custody and counsel’s agreement to the stipulation.\
The bench found the officers credible and convicted Trice of delivery of 1–15 grams of a substance containing heroin; Trice was sentenced to six years. Trice appealed, raising chain‑of‑custody and clerical errors in fines/fees and mittimus.\

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the tested substance	The State relied on the officers’ testimony about inventory and the parties’ stipulation that the chemist received and tested Inventory No. 13044995 and maintained chain of custody.	Stipulation and testimony conflicted (plastic vs. tinfoil; rock/raw vs. powder), showing a complete breakdown or tampering between seizure and lab testing so the chemist’s result cannot link to the seized item.	Court affirmed conviction: defendant waived challenge by stipulating to chemist’s testimony; no showing of actual tampering; State made prima facie case and invited‑error/waiver bars the claim.
Whether the trial court should have excluded the parties’ stipulation or the chemist’s positive test	State: stipulation was agreed and admissible; no claim at trial to exclude it.	Defendant: court should have refused stipulation sua sponte or treat it as insufficient proof.	Court rejected argument; defendant forfeited by not objecting and provided no authority for sua sponte exclusion.
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for agreeing to the stipulation	State: counsel’s conduct fell within trial strategy (she elicited and used the discrepancy in argument).	Defendant: counsel’s agreement to stipulation deprived him of cross‑examination and was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial.	Court found counsel’s conduct plausible trial strategy and not ineffective; no prejudice shown.
Clerical corrections: pretrial credit and mittimus	State agreed that fines/fees math and mittimus were incorrect.	Defendant sought correction to reflect $5/day for 320 days and correct offense description.	Court ordered correction: fines/fees reduced by $1,600 (total owed $954) and mittimus amended to reflect single count of delivery (1+ to <15 g heroin/analog).

Key Cases Cited

Lozman v. Putnam, 379 Ill. App. 3d 807 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (party waives points by failing to argue them).\
People v. Ward, 215 Ill. 2d 317 (Ill. 2005) (issues not supported by authority are forfeited).\
People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (Ill. 2005) (chain‑of‑custody challenges are forfeited if not raised at trial; stipulation waives objections).\
People v. Alsup, 241 Ill. 2d 266 (Ill. 2011) (chain‑of‑custody rules for fungible/tamperable items).\
People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368 (Ill. 2004) (doctrine of invited error: a party cannot adopt a procedure at trial and later complain on appeal).\
People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307 (Ill. 2000) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice required).