State v. Hatcher
392 S.C. 86
| S.C. | 2011Background
- Hatcher indicted for distribution of crack cocaine in Marlboro County on Oct 6, 2006.
- Undercover Buyer purchased two crack pieces from Hatcher, packaged in two knotted plastic corners.
- Buyer delivered drugs to Sheriff Locklear, who sealed and logged them, transporting to SLED.
- SLED processed, resealed in a heat-sealed bag, and later tested by Marjorie Wilson with seals intact.
- State moved to admit State's Exhibit 1; defense objected to chain of custody; trial court admitted the evidence.
- Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient chain of custody; SC Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, upholding sufficiency of chain of custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is it required to identify every custodian in the chain of custody? | Hatcher: all handlers must be identified. | Hatcher: not necessary to identify every custodian. | No; complete chain as far as practicable suffices. |
| Does testimony from some custodians establish chain of custody for fungible evidence? | State argues multiple custodians testified, establishing continuity. | Hatcher argues gaps undermine the chain. | Yes; testimony from key custodians suffices when tamper-proof handling is shown. |
| Was the trial court's admission of the drug evidence an abuse of discretion? | State contends proper chain of custody established. | Hatcher contends chain was insufficient. | No abuse; chain of custody established as far as practicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 647 S.E.2d 202 (2007) (approval that chain need not identify every person who handled evidence)
- Benton v. Pellum, 232 S.C. 26, 100 S.E.2d 534 (1957) (must establish chain of custody as far as practicable)
- State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 598 S.E.2d 735 (Ct.App.2004) (testimony of every custodian not required; demonstrate handling)
- Chisolm (Ct.App.), 355 S.C. 175, 584 S.E.2d 401 (Ct.App.2003) (overruled to the extent requiring every person testify)
- Cochran, 364 S.C. 621, 614 S.E.2d 642 (2005) (chain of custody sufficient when arrive sealed and intact; not every person must testify)
- State v. Price, 731 S.W.2d 287 (Mo.Ct.App.1987) (adequate chain when item remains unchanged in custody)
- Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 307 Pa.Super. 63, 452 A.2d 1039 (1982) (pragmatic chain of custody approach)
- United States v. De Larosa, 450 F.2d 1057 (3d Cir.1971) (discretion to admit evidence based on practicality)
- Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914 (9th Cir.1960) (flexible chain of custody considerations)