Ellis v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-01460-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-27-2006 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Statutory rape - Chain of custody Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Diaz, Easley, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2005 Appealed from: Carroll County Circuit Court Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: Ellis was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to serve a term of twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2005-0004-CR-2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Yvonne Ellis a/k/a Yvon Ellis |
IMHOTEP ALKEBU-LAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Statutory rape - Chain of custody |
| Summary of the Facts: | Yvonne Ellis was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ellis argues that the court erred by admitting the four tubes of blood taken from Ellis and another man (who also had sex with the victim) as DNA evidence, because the chain of custody was not properly established. A deputy witnessed the blood being drawn from the two men by the nurse; however, he could not recall at trial as to when during the process the nurse actually labeled the tubes with the men’s names but only recalled seeing the nurse put labels on the tubes. He also did not recall whether the nurse packaged the tubes together or separately to be sent to the Mississippi Crime Laboratory. The deputy took the tubes to the MCL. Reliagene Technologies in New Orleans received the tubes from the MCL via FedEx and sent the tubes via UPS back to the MCL, where they were retrieved by the same deputy. The test of whether there has been a break in the chain of custody of evidence is whether there is an indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with the evidence or substitution of the evidence. The proponent of the evidence must show no reasonable inference of material tampering with, or substitution of, the evidence; however, Mississippi law has never required a proponent of evidence to produce every handler of the evidence. While it could be argued that the nurse’s actions do not enjoy the presumption of regularity because she is not a public official, Ellis still has the burden of proving that the tubes were substituted. He simply offers no proof that substitution occurred. A mere suggestion that substitution could possibly have occurred does not meet the burden of showing probable substitution. No witness who did testify gave any reason for the jury to believe that anything irregular occurred with this evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
