Martel Dejuandre Manor v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: September 2, 2022
• Docket: A22A1020
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., GOBEIL and LAND, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

September 2, 2022

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A22A1020. MANOR v. THE STATE.

MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge.

After a jury trial, Martel Manor was convicted of possession of marijuana with

intent to distribute, possession of oxycodone, fleeing or attempting to elude a police

officer, and reckless driving. Manor appeals, enumerating that the trial court

committed plain error in admitting test results of the alleged marijuana because the

state failed to establish a chain of custody of the substance tested and that his trial

counsel was ineffective in failing to raise such a chain of custody objection. The state

concedes reversible error as to both of Manor’s enumerations, acknowledging that it

failed to prove a chain of custody of the alleged marijuana and that Manor’s trial

counsel was ineffective in not raising a chain of custody objection. We agree with the

state’s concession of error as to the first enumeration, so we reverse Manor’s marijuana conviction on that basis, and we therefore need not reach the additional

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We also do not consider Manor’s other

convictions since they have not been addressed on appeal.

Although the state has conceded error, this court still must determine for itself

whether error exists. Collins v. State, 266 Ga. App. 871, 874 (2) (601 SE2d 111)

(2004). With regard to Manor’s first enumeration, we agree that the trial court erred

in admitting the test results of the alleged marijuana absent proof of a chain of

custody.

To establish the chain of custody of a fungible substance like [marijuana], the [s]tate must establish the identity and integrity of the [substance]. The proponent must show that the [substance] tested at the crime lab, for example, is the same as that seized from the accused. The proponent also must show that the drugs . . . were neither tampered with nor corrupted during their travels from crime scene to evidence room to laboratory to courtroom. Proving the chain of custody for fungible evidence means accounting for the safekeeping and transportation of the evidence from seizure to trial.

Phillips v. Williams, 276 Ga. 691, 691-692 (583 SE2d 4) (2003) (citations and

punctuation omitted).

In this case, the state failed to establish a chain of custody accounting for the

safekeeping and transport of the alleged marijuana sample that was tested. “Since the

suspected marijuana . . . [was a] fungible item[], i.e., [it was] not identifiable by [its]

2 own characteristic appearance, the test results were not admissible and had no

probative value absent other evidence sufficient to show with reasonable certainty

that the substance tested was the same as the substance seized.” Meeks v. State, 150

Ga. App. 170, 171 (257 SE2d 27) (1979). Because the state has made no showing of

such other evidence, “the results of the [marijuana] test [were] therefore

inadmissible.” Warner v. State, 277 Ga. App. 421, 423 (1) (626 SE2d 620) (2006),

overruled in part on other grounds by White v. State, 305 Ga. 111, 118-119 (2) (823

SE2d 794) (2019). Compare Horne v. State, 318 Ga. App. 484, 487-488 (2) (733

SE2d 487) (2012) (chain of custody requirement for seized cocaine was satisfied

where “the evidence showed with reasonable certainty that the substance tested was

the same as that seized”). The trial court’s admission of the evidence of the test

results, which likely affected the outcome of the trial proceedings on the charge for

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, constituted plain error. See Gates

v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 326-327 (3) (781 SE2d 772) (2016). We therefore reverse

Manor’s conviction on that marijuana charge.

Judgment reversed in part. Gobeil and Land, JJ., concur.