Delaware Code

10 Del. C. § 4330 (2026)

Chemical test report

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of establishing that physical evidence in a criminal or civil proceeding constitutes a particular controlled substance defined under Chapter 47 of Title 16, a report signed by the forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist who performed the test or tests as to its nature is prima facie evidence that the material delivered was properly tested under procedures approved by the Division of Forensic Science, that those procedures are legally reliable, that the material was delivered by the officer or person stated in the report and that the material was or contained the substance therein stated, without the necessity of the forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist personally appearing in court, provided the report identifies the forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist as an individual certified by the Division of Forensic Science, the Delaware State Police or any county or municipal police department employing analysts of controlled substances, as qualified under standards approved by the Division of Forensic Science to analyze those substances, states that the forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist made an analysis of the material under the procedures approved by the Division of Forensic Science and also states that the substance, in the forensic toxicologist’s or forensic chemist’s opinion, is or contains the particular controlled substance specified. Nothing in this section precludes the right of any party to introduce any evidence supporting or contradicting the evidence contained in or the presumption raised by the report.

69 Del. Laws, c. 237, §  170 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  179 Del. Laws, c. 265, §  9
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2023 · leading case: State v. Munden, 891 A.2d 193 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005).
State v. Munden, 891 A.2d 193 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005). “10 Del.C. § 4330. (Emphasis added). . Watson v.”
State of Delaware v. Dewayne McNair (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). “What is also unique about this case is, that, unlike in most drug cases, defense counsel advised the State he was unwilling to agree to the chain of custody being established pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 4330. As such, there was significant evidence and argument heard before the…”
Hairston v. State (Del. 2021). “those procedures are legally reliable; 19 10 Del. C. § 4330. 10 c. the material was delivered by the officer or person stated in the report; and d.”
State v. Bartell (Del. Super. Ct. 2023). “’ Note that Hairston involved the admissibility of controlled substances, and thus implicated Statutes 10 Del. C. § 4330, et seq. which are not applicable to the DNA evidence in Bartell’s case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.