64 N.E.3d 221
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- On August 6, 2013, William C. Williams was involved in a motorcycle crash in which his passenger, Nancy Parsons, died; Williams consented to a blood draw at the hospital.
- Indiana State Department of Toxicology found THC in Williams’ blood; a sample was sent to NMS Labs (Pennsylvania) for further testing, and NMS produced a report indicating methamphetamine (and amphetamine) in his blood.
- Williams was charged with two Class B felony counts: operating a vehicle with a Schedule I/II controlled substance (marijuana) in his blood causing death (Count I) and similarly with methamphetamine in his blood causing death (Count II).
- At trial, the State introduced a 192-page NMS “Litigation Support Package” as Exhibit 65 (including the toxicology report and chain-of-custody records); only the two-page toxicology report was submitted to the jury, but the State relied on the full package for chain-of-custody proof.
- Williams objected to admission of Exhibit 65 on authentication grounds; the trial court admitted it under the business-records exception and the jury convicted Williams on both counts; Williams appealed only the methamphetamine-related conviction.
- The Court of Appeals found the State failed to authenticate Exhibit 65 properly, undermining chain-of-custody proof for the methamphetamine result; it reversed Count II and affirmed Count I based on the unchallenged marijuana evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State properly authenticated NMS Litigation Support Package (Ex. 65) under Evid. R. 902(11) / 803(6) | Exhibit 65 was admissible as self-authenticating business records (certification and witness testimony adequate) | Certification lacked custodian signature/qualifications and witness (analyst) testimony did not establish records-practice or chain-of-custody for the full package | Court: Authentication insufficient under Rule 902(11) and 803(6); Exhibit 65 not properly authenticated |
| Whether analyst testimony (Jennifer Turri) could substitute for custodian’s testimony to admit business records | Turri’s testimony about testing and the computer-generated toxicology report sufficiently explained creation and routine practice | Turri did not prepare the report, lacked records-custodian role, and did not account for the 192-page package or chain-of-custody entries | Court: Analyst testimony partially explained the two-page report but did not authenticate entire Exhibit 65 or chain-of-custody entries |
| Whether State met burden to show chain of custody for fungible blood sample absent Exhibit 65 | State argued chain-of-custody established via Exhibit 65 and witness testimony | Williams argued gaps in custody proof and that Exhibit 65 was unauthenticated so chain of custody failed | Court: Without Exhibit 65, State failed to establish reasonable assurances of undisturbed evidence; chain of custody not proven for methamphetamine result |
| Remedy for insufficient authentication / chain-of-custody | State requested affirmance of marijuana conviction if methamphetamine conviction reversed | Williams sought reversal of methamphetamine conviction | Court: Reversed Count II (methamphetamine) and affirmed Count I (marijuana) |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxell v. State, 778 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2002) (State must give reasonable assurances chain-of-custody for fungible evidence; gaps go to weight not admissibility if whereabouts strongly suggested)
- Rolland v. State, 851 N.E.2d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (witness with functional understanding of business recordkeeping may sponsor business records)
- Embrey v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (sponsor need not have personally made the record but must show it was placed in records by authorized person with knowledge)
- Sandleben v. State, 22 N.E.3d 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (sponsor must testify how record was made, who filed it, and that filer was authorized and had personal knowledge)
- Speybroeck v. State, 875 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (certifications lacking penalties of perjury may be deficient for self-authentication)
- In re Paternity of H.R.M., 864 N.E.2d 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses requirements for certifications and authenticity in business-records context)