United States v. Sharon Grant
967 F.2d 81, 1992 WL 135102, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14066 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gap in the chain of custody for a piece of physical evidence does not render the evidence insufficient to support a conviction, as it goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, particularly when other corroborating evidence exists from which a jury could reasonably infer guilt.
Facts:
- In September 1990, Sharon Grant offered Gene Kirven $8,000 to travel to Africa and bring 'something' back.
- In Senegal, Grant and Kirven received two packages, which Grant taped to Kirven's body.
- After successfully clearing U.S. customs, Kirven gave the packages to Grant, who then told Kirven the packages contained heroin.
- In December 1990, Grant and Kirven took a second trip to Africa, this time to the Ivory Coast.
- In Abidjan, they received two packages, and Grant again assisted Kirven in strapping them to her body for the return flight.
- On the flight to New York, Grant warned Kirven not to discuss the packages because law enforcement agents might be listening.
- Upon arrival in New York in January 1991, U.S. Customs inspectors detained Grant and Kirven, who appeared nervous.
- A search of Kirven revealed two packages, and the contents of the packages field-tested positive for heroin.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Grant was prosecuted by the government in a federal district court (the trial court).
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Grant of conspiracy to import heroin, importation of heroin, and possession of heroin with intent to distribute in connection with the January 1991 incident.
- The same jury found Grant not guilty of the charges related to the September 1990 incident.
- The district court sentenced Grant to 187 months in prison.
- Grant (as appellant) appealed her conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals (this court), arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the substance was heroin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a gap in the chain of custody for a seized substance render the government's evidence insufficient to prove the identity of that substance beyond a reasonable doubt when other circumstantial and testimonial evidence supports the jury's finding?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a gap in the chain of custody does not render the evidence insufficient to support a conviction. A challenge to the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, especially when the physical evidence itself is not offered but is instead the subject of expert testimony. The court reasoned that Grant's appeal was a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, which faces a high hurdle. A rational jury could have found the substance was heroin based on several pieces of evidence: (1) Kirven’s testimony about both trips; (2) Grant’s own admission after the first trip that the packages contained heroin; (3) Grant's warning on the second trip not to talk about the packages, which implied consciousness of guilt; (4) the positive field test at the airport; and (5) the fact that the weight of the packages recorded at the airport vault and the DEA lab was identical, suggesting no tampering occurred despite the gap in the record. This cumulative evidence was ample for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the legal distinction between a challenge to the admissibility of evidence and a challenge to its sufficiency. It establishes that a defect in the chain of custody is not automatically fatal to the prosecution's case. Instead of leading to the exclusion of evidence, such a defect becomes a factor for the jury to consider when weighing the evidence's credibility. This holding reinforces the high standard for overturning a jury verdict on sufficiency grounds, demonstrating that strong circumstantial evidence can overcome procedural weaknesses in the handling of physical evidence.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Sharon Grant