Bowerman v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 221 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 221ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-13-431
Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014
ARBURY CHARLES BOWERMAN
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LOGAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. NORTHERN DISTRICT
[NO. CR-2011-86]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE JERRY RAMEY,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge
Appellant Arbury Charles Bowerman appeals his convictions for third-degree battery,
residential burglary, and aggravated robbery. His sole argument on appeal is that the trial
court abused its discretion in admitting lab reports linking his DNA to the crime scene. We
affirm.
Appellant was tried by a jury. Larry Brown testified that on the night of August 28,
2011, he was awakened to find masked gunmen in his home. Brown described how the
gunmen escorted him outside and repeatedly hit him with a gun. At one point, he attempted
to escape, but he was caught and then wrestled with two men for their guns. During the
struggle, Brown bit one of the gunman’s hands and was left with what he thought was flesh
or a piece of glove in his mouth. Brown said that he tucked the substance in his jaw, and
after the police arrived he spit it out into a plastic baggie handed to him by his wife. Brown
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 221said that he handed the baggie to Ray Gack or one of the other police officers.
Brown’s wife, Brandi, confirmed that she handed her husband a baggie when he asked
for it, that he spit a mouthful of blood into it, and that he gave it to an officer. Ray Gack,
an investigator for the Logan County Sheriff’s Department, testified that he arrived after other
officers, and the plastic baggie was handed to him. He did not recall who gave it to him.
Gack testified that he sent the baggie and a cheek swab of appellant’s to the State Crime
Laboratory for analysis.
Callie Wells, a forensic DNA analyst at the state crime lab, testified that she analyzed
the evidence submitted in this case and that DNA profiles were obtained from the tissue in
the plastic bag. Wells said that the tissue had a mixture of Larry Brown’s and appellant’s
DNA. She testified that Ray Gack was listed as the submitting officer, but she did not receive
the evidence herself.
The State moved to admit copies of Wells’s reports. Appellant objected to their
admission, arguing that the chain of custody was in dispute. He argued that Wells did not
know from whom she got the sample and that Gack did not see Brown spit into the baggie
or know who had handed him the baggie. The trial court overruled the objection and
admitted the lab reports. On cross-examination, Wells testified that Gack submitted the
evidence to the lab, and it then went through other channels before reaching the DNA
section. She said that when the case was assigned to her, she checked the evidence out of its
secure storage location.
Appellant was convicted of third-degree battery, residential burglary, and aggravated
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 221robbery and found not guilty of theft of property. He was sentenced as a habitual offender
to forty-five years’ imprisonment, and this appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the State failed to establish an adequate chain of custody of the
tissue sample and thus, the lab reports should not have been admitted into evidence. He
contends that the State failed to prove where the tissue had come from at the crime scene
because Gack could not remember who had handed the baggie to him or if anyone else had
touched the baggie. Appellant also faults the State for failing to prove who received the
evidence at the crime lab.
We do not reverse a circuit court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a
showing that the court abused its discretion. Jackson v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 359, 374 S.W.3d
857. The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to prevent the introduction of evidence
that is not authentic or that has been tampered with. Id. To prove authenticity of evidence
the State must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the evidence has not been altered in
any significant manner. Id. To allow introduction of physical evidence, it is not necessary
that every moment from the time the evidence comes into the possession of a
law-enforcement agency until it is introduced at trial be accounted for by every person who
could have conceivably come in contact with the evidence during that period. Id. It is also
not necessary to eliminate every possibility of tampering. Tatum v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 83,
380 S.W.3d 519. It is only necessary that the trial court, in its discretion, be satisfied that the
evidence presented is genuine and, in reasonable probability, has not been tampered with.
Id.3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 221In Tatum, we held that a moment-by-moment account of evidence retrieved from the
crime lab and transported to trial was not necessary. There, the trial court had satisfied itself
that the evidence was genuine and that there had been no tampering, and the appellant had
provided no basis for concluding otherwise. The same is true here. It was not necessary to
prove who had handed the baggie to Gack or who had received the evidence at the crime lab.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the exhibits upon finding that, in
reasonable probability, the evidence had not been altered. We affirm.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WHITEAKER, J., agree.
Laura Avery, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Valerie Glover Fortner, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4