In the context of controlled dangerous substances:
(1) “Chain of custody” means:
a. The seizing officer;
b. The packaging officer, if the packaging officer is not also the seizing officer; and
c. The forensic toxicologist or forensic chemist or other person who actually touched the substance and not merely the outer sealed package in which the substance was placed by the law-enforcement agency before or during the analysis of the substance.
(2) “Chain of custody” does not include a person who handled the substance in any form after analysis of the substance.
(3) a. For the purpose of establishing, in a criminal or civil proceeding, the chain of physical custody or control of evidence consisting of or containing a substance tested or analyzed to determine whether it is a controlled substance defined under Chapter 47 of Title 16, a statement signed by each successive person in the chain of custody that the person delivered it to the other person indicated on or about the date stated is prima facie evidence that the person had custody and made the delivery as stated, without the necessity of a personal appearance in court by the person signing the statement.
b. The statement shall contain a sufficient description of the material or its container so as to distinguish it as the particular item in question and shall state that the material was delivered in essentially the same condition as received.
c. The statement may be placed on the same document as the report provided for in § 4330 of this title.
d. 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 statement.
69 Del. Laws, c. 237,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2021 · leading case:
Hairston v. State (Del. 2021).
Malik J. Moss v. State of Delaware (Del. 2017).
· cites it 2× ““The proper standard for the admission of items into evidence over a chain of custody objection is whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence offered is what the proponent says it is—that is, that the evidence has not been misidentified and no tampering or…”
Hairston v. State (Del. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The prosecution may choose, as it did here, to call the testing analyst to testify as to the nature of the tested substance, instead of 22 10 Del. C. § 4331. 23 Section 4331 allows the State, in a criminal or civil proceeding, to establish the chain of custody by submitting into…”
State v. Brown (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).
“’FNB The Superior Court denied that request, noting that 10 Del. C. § 4331 defines the chain of custody as the ‘seizing officer, the packaging officer, and the medical examiner,’ all of whom had testified at Brown’s trial, which Brown’s attorney conceded.”
Anderson v. State (Del. 2018).
“(11) In this case, Detective Mancuso testified that he personally received the drugs from Anderson during each of the transactions.”
— 10 Del. C. § 4331(1) — 2 cases
Malik J. Moss v. State of Delaware (Del. 2017).
““The proper standard for the admission of items into evidence over a chain of custody objection is whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence offered is what the proponent says it is—that is, that the evidence has not been misidentified and no tampering or…”
Anderson v. State (Del. 2018).
“(11) In this case, Detective Mancuso testified that he personally received the drugs from Anderson during each of the transactions.”
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.