## Facts

- Baltimore City Police conducted an undercover “buy/walk” narcotics operation on September 21, 2015, in the 5100 block of Park Heights Avenue.
- Detective Ivan Bell, working undercover, testified that Robert Wheeler approached him while riding a bicycle and advertised “space jam,” described as a local heroin brand name.
- Bell told Wheeler he wanted to buy heroin; Wheeler led him behind storefronts and introduced him to two people from whom Bell purchased suspected heroin.
- The purchases consisted of three baggies: two small orange Ziploc baggies and one clear Ziploc baggie with blue writing.
- Within an hour, Bell returned to the station, identified Wheeler using a photo database, completed his report, and recorded a centralized complaint number on relevant documents.
- A forensic chemist testified that she received evidence from the Evidence Control Unit bearing the same complaint number and determined the substances in the three baggies were heroin.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted the drug evidence and the chemist’s report; a jury convicted Wheeler of conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the heroin and the chemist’s report when the State did not call the officer who packaged/submitted the evidence, allegedly leaving an inadequate chain of custody.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting the drugs and the chemist’s report.
- The court concluded the State established a reasonable probability that the evidence was not tampered with despite the absence of testimony from the packaging/submitting officer.

## Legal Principles

- The proponent of physical evidence must establish a reasonable probability that the item is what it purports to be and has not been tampered with; absolute certainty is not required.
- The State is not required to call every person who handled the evidence as a prerequisite to admissibility, so long as the proof as a whole reasonably negates tampering.
- Once a minimally adequate chain of custody is shown, claimed gaps ordinarily affect weight and credibility for the factfinder, not admissibility.
- Admission of physical evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal is unwarranted where the trial court’s ruling falls within a range of reasonable choices.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Wheeler’s convictions, ruling that testimony linking the seized baggies to a consistent complaint number and to the chemist’s receipt and analysis established a reasonable probability of evidentiary integrity, making any missing link from a non-testifying packaging/submitting officer a matter for the jury’s assessment of weight rather than a bar to admissibility.


Wheeler v. State, 233 Md. App. 265, 163 A.3d 843 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017)