NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO: Professor [] FROM: [your name] DATE: September 25, 2006 RE: Sally Stratmore Appellation INTRODUCTION The current lawsuit was brought by the State of Texas against the appellant Sally Stratmore, in connection with carrying 29 grams of cocaine and other violations. Appellant Sally Stratmore, timely appeals her convictions in driving a red light with broken taillights, in attempt to escape, and, finally, in conviction for carrying 29 grams of cocaine. Appellant was convicted in Houston, Texas County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant Sally Stratmore timely argues on appeal that she didnt receive a fair trial and that she should be released from prison and exculpated because the court failed to bring sufficient identification of the evidence due to a break in the chain of custody reported. For the following reasons, appellants Sally Stratmore sentence should be vacated. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Court should approve the fact of a break in the chain of custody and grant the appellants motion for further re-examination of the issue and, as a result, to vacate the appellants sentence.
SHORT ANSWER The facts presented in the current Memorandum of Law lead to conclusion that a break in the chain of custody occurred and, therefore, the appellants Sally Stratmore sentence should be vacated as she didnt receive a fair trial. STATEMENT OF FACTS The U. S. Constitution as lawfully amended is the supreme Law of Texas state according to its Supremacy Clause claiming: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [federal government] which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States [federal government], shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... The Texas County Court of Common Pleas is bound by this Supremacy Clause supra: ... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America also mentions the judicial power that might be exercised by the judges: The Judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... Therefore, the Texas County Court of Common Pleas is guided by the following: The Constitution of the United States of America itself (as lawfully amended); Federal laws and codes that are created in accordance and in pursuance of the U. S. Constitution; Finally, the Treaties enacted under the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America. The general purposes of the Penal Code of Texas are to establish a system of prohibitions, penalties, and correctional measures to deal with conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens harm to those individual or public interests for which state protection is appropriate (Title 1, 1. 02. ). It defines the punishment as may be necessary proportionately to the seriousness of offences and crimes.
Under the Texas law, a person adjudged guilty (Title 3, 12. 01. ) of a crime or an offense shall be punished according to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code of Texas. Cocaine abuse is an issue of increased concern in Texas and leads to law enforcements in state of Texas. In Houston, Texas, the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, the drug laws determine the punishment and penalty that range from a maximum $ 500 fine (for example, for a C class paraphernalia issue) to life imprisonment (for possession of more than four hundred grams of cocaine). The punishment and fine usually depend on the seriousness of the case. There is a precedent Hart v. State, 15 S.
W. 3 d 117 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2000) where the defendant Harold Hart Jr. was charged and convicted for delivery of a controlled substance of cocaine in quantity of more than four grams but less than 200 grams. The defendant was sentenced to 99 years imprisonment. Terry Wayne Hardeman. (Hardeman v. State, 1 S.
W. 3 d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) was accused of possession of less than 28 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to a 10 years of probation. Another precedent concerns Brandy Gene Price (Price v. State, 15 S. W. 3 d 577 Tex.
App. - Waco 2000) who was accused of possession of cocaine. The defendant was sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment and $ 3000 fine. All these cases prove the seriousness of the issue. Appellant claims that the trial court committed an error when it examined the evidence material because the state had no right to identify the evidence material because the state established no proper chain of custody of the evidence and a break in the chain of custody was reported. DISCUSSION In applying the analysis to the facts at hand, we find that the defendant was accused of possession of 29 grams of cocaine in violation of Code 18. 2 - 248. On appeal, the defendant argues that the state was mistaken in admitting into evidence the cocaine as the chain of custody was broken.
As it was discussed during the court examination, Fort Bend County Sheriffs Deputy Doug Patterson was working the graveyard shift with his partner on December 30, 2005. Doug Patterson and his partner noticed the case with broken taillights that run a red light. Fort Bend County Sheriffs Deputy and his partner pulled the automobile over and asked the driver, the defendant Sally Stratmore, to show her driving license. Sally Stratmore produced her driving license and gave it to Doug Patterson. After Doug Patterson reviewed the license, he asked the defendant Sally Stratmore to step out of the car. The defendant Sally Stratmore was very nervous and anxious.
She reluctantly got out of her car. The defendants behavior seemed to be suspicious and Fort Bend County Sheriffs Deputy wanted to pat-down the appellant. The defendant Sally Stratmore suddenly tried to escape. Doug Patterson stopped her and patted-down Sally Stratmore. During the search he found something what turned out to be approximately 29 grams of cocaine. During the trial Fort Bend County Sheriffs Deputy Doug Patterson gave testimonial evidence that when he came back to the office, he put evidence into a bag, sealed it, with proper documentation, and put it into the overnight lock box.
Once he dropped the evidence into the lock box, he had no contact with it anymore. During the trial the state called the State chemist Janet Trujillo to test the evidence. Janet Trujillo made appropriate tests and testified that she picked up the evidence from the evidence locker at the Fort Bend County Medical Examiners office. The state didnt call any other witnesses related to the handling of this particular evidence.
At the close of the prosecutors case in chief, Attorney for Stratmore moved for directed verdict, because there was a break in the chain of custody. The trial judge denied the request. Appellant was ultimately found guilty, and wishes to appeal the conviction. The court is expected to take precautions that ensure safety of the evidence presented.
To that end, the court is expected to follow precise procedures in order to safeguard the evidence while court proceedings. These procedures concern maintaining safety for evidence material presented during the trial. The chain of custody concerns accurate control of original evidence material that is intended to be used for legal purposes. The court must control physical and other kind of access to the original evidence material while it is in their possession. In such a way, controlling and auditing the original condition and state of the evidence is very important for the authorities who pursue legal action. The appellant can object the accusation by presenting the following conclusions, arguing that the break in the chain of custody could probably take place when Bend County Sheriffs Deputy Doug Patterson put the evidence into a bag and let it in the evidence vault for several days with persons who possibly had access to the overnight lock box until the State chemist Janet Trujillo picked up the evidence from the evidence locker at the Fort Bend County Medical Examiners office. "Under familiar principles of appellate review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. " Crews v.
Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 115, 117, 442 S. E. 2 d 407, 408 (1994). "'The admissibility of evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial court, and a ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. '" Id. at 118, 442 S. E. 2 d at 409 (quoting Blain v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.
App. 10, 16, 371 S. E. 2 d 838, 842 (1988) ). "The purpose of the chain of custody rule is to establish that the evidence obtained by the police was the same evidence tested. " Robertson v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 854, 857, 406 S. E. 2 d 417, 419 (1991).
Therefore, the possibility that the evidence was substituted tampered or alternate, cannot be excluded by the court. The court should be required to prove with the reasonable assurance that the evidence material that was tested by the State chemist Janet Trujillo and presented as evidence during the trial, was in the same condition as it was when obtained by Fort Bend County Sheriffs Deputy Doug Patterson during the search. "Where there is mere speculation that contamination or tampering could have occurred, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit the evidence and let what doubt there may be go to the weight to be given the evidence. " Reedy v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 386, 391, 388 S. E. 2 d 650, 652 (1990). Besides, "it is the period preceding the analysis that is crucial" in finding out whether the evidence material physically corresponds to the same substance that was taken out from the appellant during the search and submitted by Fort Bend County Sheriffs Deputy.
Gosling v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 158, 166, 415 S. E. 2 d 870, 874 (1992). Thus, a break in the chain of custody could occur and, therefore, this fact allows the appellant to appeal the conviction.
A break in the chain of custody of evidence creates an insurmountable obstacle for legal authorities who pursue legal action. The appellant argues that the cocaine was im permissibly admitted at her trial since the evidence lacked a proper chain of custody. The exclusion or admission of relevant evidence can be based on the precedent of the trial court State v. Sage (1987), 3 d 173, 510 N. E. 2 d 343. Further, the abuse of discretion can be found.
An unconscionable and erroneous decision can be resulted from the abuse of discretion. According to Evid. R. 901 (A), the requirement of authentification 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. Evid. R. 901 (B) (1) provides that the acceptable method of identification can be a testimony by a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be. The chain of custody is an important part of the requirements for identification and authentification.
The prosecution is responsible for providing with a proper chain of custody. The state prosecution is not obliged to eliminate the probability that substitution or break occurred. It must only state that it is convinced in that a tampering, substitution, break or alteration didnt take place. Further, the chain of custody can be states by direct testimony. The problem, whether there was a break in the chain of custody, is the responsibility and the determination left to the court jury.
However, break in the chain of custody generally go to the weight afforded to the evidence material. Therefore, a break in the chain of custody doesnt go to the evidence admissibility. CONCLUSION According to the record in this matter, we reveal that the appellant Sally Stratmore was arrested following minor violations of order following carrying 29 grams of cocaine on December 30, 2005. Fort Bend County Sheriffs Deputy Doug Patterson who patted-down Sally Stratmore found a package what turned out to be approximately 29 grams of cocaine. After Doug Patterson found the package containing cocaine, he returned to his office, put evidence into a bag, sealed it, with proper documentation, and put it into the overnight lock box. According to Doug Patterson's testimony, once he dropped the evidence into the lock box, he had no contact with it anymore.
According to the testimony of the second witness, the State chemist Janet Trujillo, she was called by the state to test the evidence. The State chemist Janet Trujillo claimed that the picked up the evidence from the evidence locker at the Fort Bend County Medical Examiners office. No other witnesses related to the handling of this particular evidence were presented. The proposal of directed verdict as there was a break in the chain of custody was denied by the trial judge. The appellant was ultimately found guilty.
However, due to lack of witnesses concerning the handling of this particular evidence as the break in the chain of custody was reported and the conviction might be appealed. Since the break in the chain of custody can be proved, and since the court failed to bring sufficient identification of the evidence due to a break in the chain of custody, the Sally Stratmore appellant should be exculpated and her sentence should be vacated. Respectfully submitted /Signature/ Bibliography Hardeman v. State, 1 S. W. 3 d 729 Tex. Crim.
App. 1999 Hart v. State, 15 S. W. 3 d 117 Tex. App. - Texarkana 2000 Price v. State, 15 S.
W. 3 d 577 Tex. App. - Waco 2000 The Penal Code of Texas. Retrieved September 25, 2006. web The U. S. Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause
Free research essays on topics related to: penal code, fair trial, trial court, supremacy clause, chain
Research essay sample on Supremacy Clause Fair Trial
