Opinion
No. 1-860 / 01-0591.
Filed January 9, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, DAVID L. CHRISTENSEN, Judge.
Michael Crandall appeals his convictions for possession with intent to deliver, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and possession of a controlled substance. AFFIRMED.
Patricia M. Hulting of Roehrick, Hulting, Krull Blumberg, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, Terry E. Rachels, County Attorney, and Ryan Ellis, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Michael Crandall appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7) (1999); failure to affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of sections 453B.1 and 453B.12; and possession of marijuana, in violation of section 124.401(5). He claims the district court erred in permitting the controlled substances and a DCI laboratory analysis report to be presented to the jury because there was insufficient evidence of chain of custody. We affirm.
Michael Crandall was stopped by Reserve Officer Donald Mescher of the Marion County Sheriff's Department on October 20, 2000. Crandall stated he had "dope" in his pockets. Mescher searched Crandall and found two individually wrapped packages of methamphetamine, another bag with methamphetamine, and a black plastic container holding loose marijuana and two marijuana cigarettes. After Crandall's arrest the items seized were taken to the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) for analysis and were confirmed to be illegal drugs.
After a jury trial Crandall was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and possession of marijuana. He appeals.
Our scope of review is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 4.
Crandall contends the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for the admission of the methamphetamine as an exhibit. He also claims the DCI lab report should not be admitted for the same reason. The State has the burden to establish it is reasonably probable there has been no tampering or substitution of an exhibit. State v. Mehner, 480 N.W.2d 872, 877 (Iowa 1992).
Here, even if there were problems with the chain of custody, any error would be harmless. Crandall admitted to the crimes in question during the trial:
Q. Mr. Crandall, you had possession of methamphetamine on October 10th, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. It was approximately one ounce, wasn't it?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you were going to sell it, weren't you?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You also had possession of marijuana, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you also failed — did you get a tax stamp for this methamphetamine?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Okay. How much methamphetamine was it?
A. 27 grams.
Thus, by his testimony Crandall admitted to possessing the illegal drugs he now seeks to exclude based on allegations of faulty chain of custody. If substantially the same evidence is in the record, erroneously admitted evidence is not considered prejudicial. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 609 (Iowa 2001).
We affirm Crandall's convictions.
AFFIRMED.