See, e.g., State v. Parton, No. E2018-01209-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 2929076, at *6-7 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 8, 2019) (affirming chain of custody on these factors and citing extensive authorities for support), no perm. app. filed. Importantly, the absence of testimony from the officer transporting the sample to the TBI does not impair the chain of custody if the other parts of the chain identified above are present. Id.; State v. Laning, No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782, *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 6, 2012), no perm. app. filed. [26] In this case, Officer Vo testified that he witnessed the blood draw and received the sealed vials from the nurse who drew the Defendant’s blood.
The State, on the other hand, cites to three cases which it contends are analogous and in which this court concluded that the chain of custody was sufficiently established. See State v. Pascasio Martinez, No. E2016-01401-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 5613976, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 21, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2018); State v. Earnest Laning, No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 6, 2012); State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, No. M2000-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1545494, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001). Tennessee Rule of Evidence 901 requires that physical evidence be authenticated prior to its admission, and authentication requires evidence sufficient "to support a finding by the trier of fact that the matter in question is what its proponent claims."
In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the cases cited by the State, State v. Earnest Laning, No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 6, 2012); State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, No. M2000-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1545494 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 28, 2002); and State v. Pascasio Martinez, No. E2016-01401-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 5613976 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 21, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 15, 2018).
Crim. App. Nov. 21, 2019), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar 15, 2018); State v. Earnest Laning, No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 6, 2012) no perm. app. filed; State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, No. M2000-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1545494 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn.
In State v. Earnest Laning, this court held that there was "a sufficient chain of custody to reasonably assure the blood sample's identity and integrity" when the officer received the sample from a phlebotomist, the officer then placed the sample in a "locked evidence refrigerator" where it could only be removed by the evidence custodian but did not know if the sample was mailed or hand-delivered to the TBI, the testing TBI agent testified that the sample was retrieved from the TBI's drop box, the TBI agent explained that the sample was received by an evidence technician who opened the package and "would have noted in the case file if someone had tampered with the box," and the TBI agent testified that the blood tube was still vacuum-sealed when she opened it. State v. Earnest Laning, No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug. 6, 2012), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. Likewise, in State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, a panel of this court held that "the State established the identity and integrity of the evidence through a sufficient chain of custody" when the officer received a blood sample from the "hospital attendant" who drew the defendant's blood, the officer testified that he then placed the sample in an "evidence locker to be mailed to the [TBI] crime laboratory," and the testing TBI agent "testified regarding the procedure for receiving and documenting blood samples and that any irregularities in the shipping or receiving of the sample would have been noted" in the TBI file. State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, No. M2000-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1545494, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 5, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn.
The facts of this case are similar to three prior decisions of this court. In State v. Earnest Laning, a panel of this court held that there was "a sufficient chain of custody to reasonably assure the blood sample's identity and integrity" when the officer received the sample from a phlebotomist; the officer then placed the sample in a "locked evidence refrigerator" where it could only be removed by the evidence custodian but did not know if the sample was mailed or hand-delivered to the TBI; the testing TBI agent testified that the sample was retrieved from the TBI's drop box; the TBI agent explained that the sample was received by an evidence technician who opened the package and "would have noted in the case file if someone had tampered with the box;" and the TBI agent testified that the blood tube was still vacuum-sealed when she opened it. No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug. 6, 2012), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. Likewise, in State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, a panel of this court held that "the State established the identity and integrity of the evidence through a sufficient chain of custody" when the officer received a blood sample from the "hospital attendant" who drew the defendant's blood, the officer testified that he then placed the sample in an "evidence locker to be mailed to the [TBI] crime laboratory," and the testing TBI agent "testified regarding the procedure for receiving and documenting blood samples and that any irregularities in the shipping or receiving of the sample would have been noted" in the TBI file. No. M2000-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1545494, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 5, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn.
See State v. Markreo Quintez Springer and William Mozell Coley, No. M2012-02046-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2828932, at *17-18 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 2014); State v. Earnest Laning, No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 6, 2012); State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, No. M2000-2885-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1545494, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001). Here, Investigator Flint testified that he delivered the sealed evidence to the TBI. According to the TBI report, Mr. Frederick was the technician who received the evidence from Investigator Flint. Three TBI employees testified to the protocol to be followed by the receiving technician, which included leaving the evidence in its sealed condition and assigning exhibit numbers and a case number to the evidence before placing it in the primary vault.
The facts of this case are similar to two prior decisions of this court. In State v. Earnest Laning, a panel of this court held that there was "a sufficient chain of custody to reasonably assure the blood sample's identity and integrity" when the officer received the sample from a phlebotomist, the officer then placed the sample in a "locked evidence refrigerator" where it could only be removed by the evidence custodian but did not know if the sample was mailed or hand-delivered to the TBI, the testing TBI agent testified that the sample was retrieved from the TBI's drop box, the TBI agent explained that the sample was received by an evidence technician who opened the package and "would have noted in the case file if someone had tampered with the box," and the TBI agent testified that the blood tube was still vacuum-sealed when she opened it. No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 6, 2012). Likewise, in State v. Michael Joseph Arbuckle, a panel of this court held that "the State established the identity and integrity of the evidence through a sufficient chain of custody" when the officer received a blood sample from the "hospital attendant" who drew the defendant's blood, the officer testified that he then placed the sample in an "evidence locker to be mailed to the [TBI] crime laboratory," and the testing TBI agent "testified regarding the procedure for receiving and documenting blood samples and that any irregularities in the shipping or receiving of the sample would have been noted" in the TBI file. No. M2000-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1545494, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001).
However, numerous cases have concluded that the chain of custody was adequately established despite the absence of testimony from some custodians who had possession of the evidence. Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 267-68 (concluding chain of custody was adequately established although collector of specimen did not testify); State v. Goad, 692 S.W.2d 32, 36 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (concluding the chain of custody was established when the custodian of the property room did not testify but other officers did); State v. Laning, No. E2011-01882-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3158782, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 6, 2012) (chain of custody established although neither police evidence custodian nor TBI receiving clerk testified). In particular, this court has considered whether or not there was any indication that the integrity of the evidence had been compromised while the evidence rested in the control of a custodian not called to testify.