From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tilghman v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware
May 3, 1999
734 A.2d 160 (Del. 1999)

Summary

holding that the chain of custody was established even though there was a two-day gap from when the evidence was collected to when it was logged in to the police evidence locker, and the person testifying to the procedures used in logging in evidence was a new employee. hired four months after the defendant was arrested

Summary of this case from State v. McDowell

Opinion

Docket No. 419, 1998.

May 3, 1999.

Appeal from Superior Court, Kent County, CrA K97-09-0327I-0329I and K97-09-0347I-0349I.


AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Tilghman v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware
May 3, 1999
734 A.2d 160 (Del. 1999)

holding that the chain of custody was established even though there was a two-day gap from when the evidence was collected to when it was logged in to the police evidence locker, and the person testifying to the procedures used in logging in evidence was a new employee. hired four months after the defendant was arrested

Summary of this case from State v. McDowell
Case details for

Tilghman v. State

Case Details

Full title:Tilghman v. State

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: May 3, 1999

Citations

734 A.2d 160 (Del. 1999)

Citing Cases

State v. McDowell

However, a six-minute difference does not of itself indicate tampering or misidentification since the police…

Guinn v. State

His challenge fails, because the alleged break in the chain of custody occurred only after the contraband had…