Wilkinson v. State

GARRITY, Judge. The sole issue presented in this case is whether a chemist’s report and an envelope containing cocaine and marijuana should have been excluded from evidence because the State failed to produce one of the persons in the chain of custody. On the early morning of October 10, 1987, Officer T.B. Keifline of the Greenbelt City Police was patrolling Maryland Route 201. A little after 1:00 a.m. he observed a Volkswagen traveling 72 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour speed zone.

He stopped the Volkswagen, and when he approached it he smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Vincent Craig Wilkinson, the appellant, was in the driver’s seat. The officer arrested the appellant and searched the car. In the course of his search, the officer found a suspected marijuana cigarette and fifteen zip lock plastic bags of suspected cocaine.

He seized the suspected substances and had them chemically analyzed. The chemical analysis confirmed that the substances were marijuana and cocaine. The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He argues that the chemist’s report and the seized substances should not have been received into evidence because the State failed to produce one of the persons in the chain of custody.

The following evidence regarding chain of custody was received. Officer T.B. Keifline testified that after he arrested the appellant, he took the appellant and the seized evidence to the Greenbelt station. He kept the evidence in his possession for the several hours it took him to complete his paper work. Ultimately, he put the evidence into an envelope, sealed the envelope and stapled it at the top.

He then put ⁶⁹⁹ the envelope into the evidence mail box. He also, on that same day, October 10, 1987, created the chain of custody form. When he left the envelope in the mail box, he made the first entry on the chain of custody form. No evidence was offered to explain what happened to the envelope between October 10, 1987 and October 17, 1987.

On October 17,1987, Officer Patrick McAndrew, the administrative officer in charge of the Greenbelt police station property room, procured the envelope from the evidence mail box and put it into the drug safe. It remained in the drug safe until the morning of November 25,1987. On that morning the envelope was transported to the Maryland State Police criminal laboratory in Pikesville for a chemical analysis. Officer McAndrew testified that at 8:55 a.m. he turned the envelope over to Cadet Deborah Weatherholtz.

Cadet Weatherholtz then drove to Pikesville to deliver the envelope. The chain of custody form shows that she turned the envelope over to Corporal Martin Flowers at the Pikes-ville office at 10:13 a.m. According to Officer McAndrew, it is normal for the drive from Beltsville to Pikesville to take about one and one-half hours. When Corporal Flowers received the envelope, it was sealed.

He opened it and verified that it contained fifteen packets of white powder and one cigarette. He then resealed the envelope and put it in the Pikesville property vault. The envelope remained in the property vault from November 25, 1987 until February 24, 1988. At 9:30 that morning, Sandra Hartsock, a chemist for the Maryland State Police, removed the envelope from the Pikesville property vault.

She tested its contents and determined that the fifteen bags contained cocaine and that the cigarette was marijuana. She finished her testing by the early afternoon. When she finished her testing, she resealed the envelope and at 2:00 p.m. returned it to the property vault. The envelope remained in the Pikesville property vault until March 9, 1988 when it was removed by Corporal ⁷⁰⁰ Flowers and turned over to Cadet Croissette.

Cadet Croissette then took the envelope back to the Greenbelt station. When Cadet Croissette returned to the Greenbelt station, she gave the envelope to Officer Thomas Kemp. Officer Kemp put the envelope in the drug safe. The envelope remained in the safe until its use in court.

At the trial of this case, Officer Keifline examined the envelope and its contents and opined that except for the markings made by the people who had opened and resealed the envelope, both the envelope and its contents appeared the same as they had on October 10, 1987. Everyone in the chain of custody except Cadet Weatherholtz testified at the appellant’s trial. Cadet Weatherholtz was not called because she was physically unable to appear in court. Both through testimony and documentary