State v. Moore
2019 UT App 159
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Early morning stop for a broken brake light and lane violation; officer observed signs of intoxication and arrested Moore for DUI.
- A search warrant authorized two blood vials drawn by a certified phlebotomist; each vial was labeled, sealed with tamper-resistant tape, placed in a sealed envelope, stored in a locked evidence refrigerator, and logged on a chain-of-evidence form.
- About seven hours later an evidence technician filled out the toxicology request, delivered the vials to the Utah Public Health Laboratories, verified labels and tape, and obtained a receipt; the identity of the receiving crime-lab technician was not recorded.
- Four days later a toxicologist retrieved the samples from the lab refrigerator, tested them, and reported a blood alcohol content of .16. The toxicologist testified about the lab’s practice to refrigerate samples and that preservatives in the vials would prevent significant degradation for several days, with any degradation likely lowering alcohol readings.
- A jury convicted Moore of DUI and related offenses; on appeal Moore argued the toxicology report was not properly authenticated due to a gap in the chain of custody at the crime lab, and he also challenged his lane-violation sentencing after the law reclassified that offense as an infraction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blood toxicology report was properly authenticated | State: circumstantial proof sufficed — unique labeling, delivery receipt, lab practice to refrigerate, toxicologist retrieved samples from refrigerator | Moore: missing link after lab receipt (no testimony who handled or when refrigerated) breaks chain of custody; evidence may have degraded/fermented | Court: Affirmed admission — circumstantial evidence + presumption of regular handling sufficed; no evidence of tampering; unrefrigerated degradation would likely lower BAC, so no showing of material alteration |
| Whether Failure to Stay in One Lane should be sentenced as misdemeanor or infraction | State: concedes change in law requires benefit of lesser penalty | Moore: entitled to lesser penalty because statute reclassified offense before sentencing | Court: Vacated misdemeanor entry and remanded to enter conviction as an infraction and resentence accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griffin, 384 P.3d 186 (Utah 2016) (authentication threshold and jury’s role in weighing chain-of-custody)
- State v. Torres, 69 P.3d 314 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (physical evidence must be in substantially same condition to be admissible)
- State v. Wynia, 754 P.2d 667 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (presumption that state evidence was handled with regularity absent proof of tampering)
- State v. Smith, 293 P.3d 1148 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (reliable chain of custody is one method of authentication; other showings may suffice)
- Maldonado v. State, 603 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (a crime lab and its employees may be treated as a single link in the chain)
- State v. Yates, 918 P.2d 136 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (defendants are entitled to benefit of reduced penalty if statute is amended to lessen punishment prior to sentencing)