Chain of custody addressed State of New Jersey v. Robert W. Morton (A-18/19-97) 155 N.J. 383.

Chain of custody addressed State of New Jersey v. Robert W. Morton (A-18/19-97) 155 N.J. 383.

VI.  The Surgical Gloves     Defendant contends that the court committed reversible error by admitting the recovered surgical gloves into evidence. At the guilt phase, defendant made no objection to the admission of the gloves. During the penalty phase, however, defendant objected to their admission as irrelevant. Defendant now argues that the State failed to provide a proper chain of custody for the gloves. He also argues that the tear in one glove's index finger, which was not discovered until after the FBI had performed its tests, established tampering sufficient to preclude the admission of that glove. Governing our review of this claim is the plain error standard, which requires the admission of the gloves "to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result."  R. 2:10-2. We find no such error.
    Through the testimony of each officer who possessed the gloves, the State established an unbroken chain of custody.  See State v. Brown, 99 N.J. Super. 22, 27 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 51 N.J. 468 (1968). Each glove was placed in a marked envelope and transferred among authorized law enforcement agents. See State v. Johnson, 90 N.J. Super. 105, 114-15 (App. Div. 1965), aff'd, 46 N.J. 289 (1966). Ample evidence supports the trial court's finding that the State proved an unbroken chain of custody.  SeeBrown, supra, 99 N.J. Super. at 27 ("Whether the requisite chain of possession has been sufficiently established to justify admission of the exhibit is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge, and his determination will not be overturned in the absence of a clearly mistaken exercise thereof."); see also State v. Farfalla, 113 N.J. Super. 557, 559-60 (App. Div.) (citing Brown with approval for the proposition that admissibility in a case involving a contested chain of custody involves an exercise of the trial court's discretion), certif. denied, 58 N.J. 394 (1971).  "Furthermore, a defect in the chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence introduced."  United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 769 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing admissibility under standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 901), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 965, 136 L. Ed.2d 850 (1997); see also Biunno, Current N.J. Rules of Evidence, 1991 Supreme Court Committee Comment on N.J.R.E. 901 (1995) ("Rule 901 generally follows Fed. R. Evid. 901 . . . .").
    In addition, the fact that the FBI was the first to note the tear in one glove is not a sufficient reason to preclude the gloves' admission into evidence. Everyone who possessed the glove testified that he had not tampered with it. The FBI experts, a DNA analyst and a fingerprint analyst, testified that they did not tear the glove during the testing procedures. Because the custodians were law enforcement officers, moreover, the prosecutor was not obligated "to negate every possibility of substitution or change in condition of the evidence."  State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377, 393 (1993). 
    Through cross-examination, defendant raised the possibility that law enforcement agents had torn the gloves. For example, under examination by defense counsel, the FBI fingerprint analyst conceded that experts accidentally have torn evidence during testing in other cases. Such concerns, however, go to the weight, not the admissibility of evidence.  Brown, supra, 99 N.J. Super.at 27-28. Thus, we reject defendant's claim of error.