Filed: Jan. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-10-2007 Govt of VI v. Hodge Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1036 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Govt of VI v. Hodge" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1790. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1790 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-10-2007 Govt of VI v. Hodge Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1036 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Govt of VI v. Hodge" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1790. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1790 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-10-2007
Govt of VI v. Hodge
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1036
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Govt of VI v. Hodge" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1790.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1790
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-1036
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
v.
WILLIAM HODGE, JR.
Appellant
On Appeal From the District Court of the
Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 04-cr-00096-2)
District Judge: Hon. Raymond L. Finch, Chief Judge
Argued December 4, 2006
BEFORE: McKEE, BARRY and STAPLETON,
Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 10, 2007)
Darwin K. Carr (Argued)
P.O. Box 1723
Christiansted, St. Croix
USVI 00821
Attorney for Appellant
Anthony J. Jenkins
United States Attorney
Denise A. Hinds-Roach
Assistant United States Attorney
Jason T. Cohen (Argued)
Office of the United States Attorney
1108 King Street, Suite 201
Christiansted, St. Croix
USVI 00820
Attorneys for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant William Hodge was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled
substance, cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). On appeal, he challenges his
conviction on two grounds. He insists that (1) the District Court erred in admitting the
controlled substance allegedly seized from him because the evidence regarding the chain
of custody was insufficient, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding
that he knowingly and intentionally possessed a controlled substance. We will affirm.
I.
At trial, the arresting officer, Officer Parris, testified that he delivered the
suspected narcotics to Sergeant Waugh, the Police Department’s property clerk, and
watched him seal them in a plastic bag and put his initials on the four corners. ATF
Agent Baker testified that he received the narcotics from Waugh and put them in a DEA
evidence bag that he heat sealed. He then sent the sealed bag to the DEA laboratory. A
drug chemist from that laboratory testified that she received the sealed bag and tested its
contents. After the contents tested positive for cocaine base, the chemist resealed the bag
and signed the seal. She then testified that the bag introduced in evidence was the same
bag she sealed in her lab.
Hodge complains that a critical link in the chain of custody was missing because
Waugh did not testify, and that Officer Parris did not identify the bag introduced in
evidence.
As we held in United States v. Dent,
149 F.3d 180, 188-89 (3d Cir. 1998) (citations
omitted):
To establish a chain of custody, the government need only show that it took
reasonable precautions to preserve the evidence in its original condition,
even if all possibilities of tampering are not excluded. Absent actual
evidence of tampering, a trial court may presume regularity in public
officials’ handling of contraband. Unless the trial court clearly abused its
discretion, we must uphold its decision to admit the cocaine base into
evidence.
We find no abuse of discretion here.
II.
Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we are
required to do in this context, it showed that the narcotics were found in a car owned and
being operated by Hodge, that they were located in a pocket to the driver’s side door in
plain view of any driver entering the vehicle, and that Hodge, upon realizing that he was
being stopped by police, backed up in an effort to avoid contact with them. This evidence
3
provides ample support for the jury’s finding that Hodge knowingly exercised dominion
and control over the narcotics. See United States v. Iafelice,
978 F.2d 92, 97 (3d Cir.
1992).
III.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
4