New Hampshire Supreme Court October 14, 2015 Oral Argument Case Summary

Transcription

1 New Hampshire Supreme Court October 14, 2015 Oral Argument Case Summary CASE #1 State of New Hampshire v. Albert J. Boutin, III ( ) Attorney Thomas Barnard, Senior Assistant Appellate Defender, for the defendant, Albert J. Boutin, III. Attorney Jason A. Casey, N.H. Department of Justice, for the State of New Hampshire. QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON APPEAL The defendant appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana. The court must decide: (1) Did the State present enough evidence for the jury to decide that the defendant was guilty of possession of marijuana, even though the State did not show the jury the actual marijuana it said he possessed? (2) Did the trial judge make a mistake by allowing a lab analyst to testify about the marijuana he tested without showing the actual marijuana the State said the defendant possessed to the jury? LAWS TO CONSIDER United States Constitution No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, 1. New Hampshire Criminal Code and Related Regulations Chapter 318-B: Controlled Drug Act It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, purchase, prescribe, administer, or transport or possess with intent to sell, dispense, or compound any controlled drug, or controlled drug analog, or any preparation containing a controlled drug, except as authorized in this chapter. RSA 318-B:2, I. 1

2 Controlled drugs means any drug or substance, or immediate precursor, which is scheduled pursuant to RSA 318-B:1-a. RSA 318-B:1, VI. Marijuana and heroin are scheduled as controlled drugs. See 21 C.F.R (listing heroin and cannabis products as Schedule I controlled drugs); N.H. Admin. Rules, He-C (a) (adopting the federal list of controlled drugs as the New Hampshire list of controlled drugs). Case Law On appeal, the defendant must prove that no rational [jury], viewing all of the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Collyns, 166 N.H. 514, 517 (2014) (quotation omitted). The State is required to establish the essential links in the chain of evidence.... State v. Reenstierna, 101 N.H. 286, 288 (1958). It is not necessary that each evidentiary fact relied upon by the State be established beyond a reasonable doubt.... No rigid rule to fit every situation can be laid down, but each case must rest on its own facts. State v. Fornier, 103 N.H. 152, 154 (1961). Gaps in a chain of custody are most significant where the contested evidence is fungible, and not readily distinguishable by a unique feature or other identifying mark. Generally, drug evidence is fungible.... State v. Moscillo, 139 N.H. 79, 81 (1994) (citations omitted). New Hampshire Rules of Evidence Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification (a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. 2

3 (3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated. (4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.... N.H. R. Ev FACTS OF THE CASE The defendant in this case is Albert Boutin. In July 2013, Boutin was involved in another case. As a result of that other case, a court ordered Boutin to turn over a gun and other ammunition to the local police. When Boutin did not turn over his ammunition, police obtained a warrant to arrest Boutin and search his apartment for the ammunition. On July 26, 2013, State Trooper Sean A. McCarthy arrested Boutin at his apartment. Trooper McCarthy then went to Boutin s bedroom to look for the ammunition. He immediately smelled an overwhelming odor of marijuana. Trooper McCarthy found a plastic bag and a cardboard box that both contained pieces of a green, leafy plant. He also found baggies, pipes, a lighter, electronic scales, and what he believed were marijuana buds in an ashtray. Additionally, he discovered a small baggie with a Superman logo on it and a rock-like substance inside. Finally, he found the ammunition. Trooper McCarthy took photos of the items and then placed them in separate, sealed evidence bags. He stored them in evidence lockers at the police station. Trooper McCarthy labeled each item with his initials and a number. For instance, he labeled the plastic bag containing the green, leafy plant as SAM3. Several days later, a detective brought the items to a lab. A lab technician received the items, placed a unique bar code on each item, and then stored them in the lab s evidence vault. A lab analyst then retrieved the items from the vault and tested them. The contents of the SAM3 bag tested positive for marijuana, while the substance in the Superman-logo bag tested positive for heroin. The analyst then returned the items to the evidence vault. 3

4 The State of New Hampshire charged Boutin with possession of marijuana and possession of heroin. At trial, Trooper McCarthy testified about what he found at Boutin s apartment. He said that he believed the green plant was marijuana. The State s attorney showed the jury Trooper McCarthy s photos from the scene. The lab analyst then testified about his lab results. He explained how he tested the evidence and determined that it was, in his opinion, marijuana and heroin. At trial, the State s attorney could have shown the jury the actual items that Trooper McCarthy said he had seized from Boutin s apartment and then asked the analyst if these were the same items he had tested. However, he chose not to do so. Boutin s attorney objected to the analyst s testimony. He argued that without the physical evidence, the State could not prove that the analyst was testifying about marijuana and heroin that had been taken from Boutin s home. Boutin s attorney said, it s a given that in order to convict someone of possessing a controlled drug you have to actually enter it into evidence. The court overruled the objection and allowed the trial to continue without the actual drugs. At the end of trial, the jury decided that Boutin was not guilty of possession of heroin. However, it decided that he was guilty of possession of marijuana. The court sentenced Boutin to one year of probation and fined him $500. Half of the fine was suspended for one year, meaning that he would not have to pay it so long as he obeyed the court s orders for a year. Boutin now appeals his conviction to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. LEGAL ARGUMENTS Albert Boutin, through his lawyer, asks the New Hampshire Supreme Court to overturn his conviction for possession of marijuana. Boutin argues that the trial judge made a mistake by allowing the jury to decide if Boutin was guilty of possessing marijuana. The jury could only find Boutin guilty if the State proved that the substance in question was, in fact, marijuana. The State never showed the jury the actual marijuana, even though it could have. According to Boutin, this was a mistake because the jury had no basis for finding him guilty without seeing the physical evidence. Boutin points out that marijuana evidence is fungible, meaning that a person cannot easily tell the difference between one sample of marijuana and another. Boutin argues that courts must be cautious about drug evidence because a lab analyst could easily mix up samples. Boutin also highlights a Massachusetts case in which a lab analyst admitted to lying about drug test 4

5 results. She changed negative test results to positive, causing more people to get in trouble, even though their test results were negative. Boutin warns that analysts will get away with wrongdoing more often if courts do not require the State to present the actual drugs at trial. Boutin also argues that the trial judge made a mistake by allowing the analyst to testify without showing the jury the actual marijuana. Boutin says that the police and lab easily could have mixed up evidence because Trooper McCarthy labeled the samples with his initials, SAM, rather than a more unique label. Boutin contends that Trooper McCarthy probably collects samples in many cases, and, if he always uses his initials, the labels could be confusing. Boutin acknowledges that the State showed the jury photos of the evidence. However, Boutin says that the photos only showed the evidence at the time it was seized from his apartment, and not when the analyst tested it. At trial, the State never asked the analyst if the items in the photos were the same items that he tested. Therefore, Boutin concludes that the trial judge should not have let the analyst testify about his results. The State of New Hampshire, through its lawyer, argues that the trial judge did not make a mistake by allowing the jury to decide Boutin s guilt or innocence without seeing the actual marijuana. The State points to New Hampshire cases where the court said that circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence was enough to prove a person s guilt. Circumstantial evidence means that the jury can infer something from the circumstances, even without direct proof. The State also argues that courts in other states have said that the jury does not need to see the actual drugs to convict someone of possessing those drugs. The State also defends its handling of the evidence. In its brief, the State details how police labeled and tracked the evidence, from the time of seizure to its testing at the lab. This is known as the chain of custody. The State argues that it presented enough evidence at trial for the jury to conclude that the evidence found in Boutin s apartment was the same evidence tested in the lab. In other words, the State says that it established every link in the chain. The jury could infer this, the State says, from the testimony that it heard from Trooper McCarthy and the lab analyst. And even if the chain of custody had been broken, the State argues that the jury still could decide that the items taken from Boutin s home were the same items tested by the analyst. (cont d) 5

6 QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS TO CONSIDER (1) How did the State make its argument without showing the jury the actual marijuana? (2) What if the marijuana had been lost or destroyed after the expert tested it? Should the expert s testimony be enough to convict Boutin? This summary was prepared by the Judicial Branch Communications Office based on legal briefs filed by the parties to the appeal. 6