## Facts

- Jamie Ray Mills was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for the killings of James Floyd Hill and Vera Hill.
- During the investigation, Officer Bryan McCraw searched the trunk of Mills’s car and opened a duffel bag found inside.
- In the duffel bag, McCraw found (among other items) Floyd Hill’s wallet, Vera Hill’s purse, bloodstained clothing, a machete, a ball-peen hammer, and a tire iron.
- McCraw inventoried the contents, placed items into separate brown paper bags, labeled the bags with descriptions, and transported the bagged evidence to the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS).
- At DFS, McCraw turned the paper bags over to an unidentified DFS employee who logged the evidence and provided McCraw an evidence receipt.
- The items remained in DFS custody for almost two years before trial.
- At trial, McCraw identified the items he had taken from the duffel bag and delivered to DFS, and DFS DNA analyst Robert Bass testified that blood found on the clothing and weapons matched the DNA profiles of James and Vera Hill.
- On appeal, Mills argued that the duffel-bag evidence should not have been admitted because the State failed to prove an adequate chain of custody during the lengthy period the evidence was stored at DFS, including the failure to identify the DFS employee who received the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting the duffel-bag items (and related forensic testing) when the State did not identify every DFS handler and did not account in detail for the evidence’s custody while stored at DFS for nearly two years.
2. Whether any chain-of-custody deficiency amounted to reversible error in a death-penalty case reviewed for plain error.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama held that the State established a sufficient chain of custody for the duffel-bag evidence.
- The Court concluded that the absence of testimony identifying the initial DFS intake employee and detailing every step of storage at DFS did not create a fatal break in the chain; at most it created a weakness for the jury to consider in weighing the evidence.
- The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, leaving Mills’s capital-murder convictions and death sentence in place.

## Legal Principles

- Physical evidence is admissible if the State shows, to a reasonable probability, that the item offered is the same item seized and is in substantially the same condition; the State need not eliminate every remote possibility of tampering.
- Alabama chain-of-custody analysis distinguishes between a “missing link” (which can bar admission) and a “weak link” (which affects weight rather than admissibility).
- The chain may be shown through testimony describing seizure, packaging, labeling, transfer to the laboratory, and testing procedures; the State is not required in every case to present named testimony from each person who handled the evidence when the surrounding proof shows reliable continuity.
- In death-penalty cases, the appellate court reviews the record for plain error, but it will not reverse where the challenged evidentiary ruling did not constitute error or did not affect substantial rights.

## Conclusion

Ex Parte Mills affirmed Mills’s capital-murder convictions and death sentence, holding that the duffel-bag items and related DNA testimony were properly admitted because the State showed a reasonable probability that the evidence seized, delivered to DFS, and tested was the same evidence introduced at trial, and any unidentified custodian at DFS created no more than a weakness for the jury to consider.


Ex Parte Mills, 62 So. 3d 574 (2010)