Can blood toxicology evidence be admitted without complete chain of custody testimony? State v. Moore Explained

In State v. Moore, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether blood toxicology evidence can be admitted when the prosecution fails to present direct testimony about every step in the chain of custody at the crime laboratory.

Background and Facts

After Luke Moore’s arrest for DUI, a phlebotomist collected blood samples using proper procedures, including tamper-resistant tape and secure storage. An evidence technician delivered the samples to the Utah Public Health Laboratories, where a toxicologist later tested them, revealing a blood alcohol content of .16. However, the State did not present direct testimony about how the crime lab handled the blood samples between receipt and testing, including when they were refrigerated.

Key Legal Issues

Moore argued that the absence of direct evidence about crime lab handling procedures created a fatal gap in the chain of custody, rendering the toxicology report inadmissible for lack of authentication under Utah Rule of Evidence 901(a). The central question was whether circumstantial evidence could satisfy the requirement that evidence be in “substantially the same condition” as when collected.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of the toxicology report, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of proper handling. The court noted that the blood samples were uniquely labeled, the State provided a receipt showing delivery to the crime lab, and the toxicologist testified about standard refrigeration procedures. Importantly, the court emphasized that “once the evidence is in the hands of the state, it is generally presumed that the exhibits were handled with regularity, absent an affirmative showing of bad faith or actual tampering.”

The court distinguished cases from other jurisdictions requiring identification of every “link” in the chain of custody, noting that Utah law permits authentication when “the trial court is satisfied that the evidence has not been changed or altered.”

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah practitioners cannot rely solely on gaps in chain of custody testimony to exclude forensic evidence. Instead, they must present affirmative evidence of tampering or procedural deviations. The court’s emphasis on presumptions of regularity for government handling of evidence strengthens the State’s position in authentication challenges.