Supreme Court of South Carolina· 3/21/2011
State v. Hatcher
Citations
- 708 S.E.2d 750
- 392 S.C. 86
- 2011 S.C. LEXIS 50
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding a party offering fungible items, such as drugs or blood samples, into evidence must establish a complete chain of custody as far as practicable
- holding establishment of a chain of custody was not necessary since the audiotaped conversation was otherwise authenticated under Rule 901, SCRE
- holding that although “every person handling the evidence need not be identified in all cases,” the proponent of the evidence must nonetheless demonstrate “how the item was obtained and how it was handled to ensure that it is, in fact, what it is purported to be”
- stating a party offering fungible items, such as drugs or blood samples, into evidence must establish a complete chain of custody as far as practicable
- finding the State need not establish the identity of every person handling evidence items in all circumstances, but rather the appropriate standard is whether, in the discretion of the trial judge, the State has established the chain of custody as far as practicable
- \The ultimate goal of chain of custody requirements is simply to ensure that the item is what it is purported to be.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beatty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. BrockmeyerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2013-11-27· cited 18×
- State v. PulleySupreme Court of South Carolina· 2018-06-06· cited 6×
- State v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2019-01-04· cited 6×
- State v. PopeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2014-08-20· cited 6×
- State v. HurellCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2018-08-01· cited 4×
- State v. TrappCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2017-05-24· cited 3×
- State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2012-05-23· cited 2×
- State v. HenleyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2019-12-11
- State v. RowellCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2021-07-07
- State v. RowellCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2021-08-04
- State v. Adam RowellCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2022-03-02
- State v. Tammy C. MoorerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2023-06-07
- State v. Tammy C. MoorerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2023-07-05
- State v. Joseph M. SwaringenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2025-04-23
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. PaganSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-06-19· cited 319×
- Albert Lopez Gallego v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1960-03-23· cited 189×
- United States v. De LarosaThird Circuit· 1971-09-27· cited 60×
- Benton Ex Rel. Benton v. PellumSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1957-11-13· cited 53×
- State v. SweetSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2007-06-11· cited 46×
- South Carolina Department of Social Services v. CochranSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2005-06-06· cited 45×
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-03-26· cited 30×
- State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-06-24· cited 23×
- State v. KahanSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1977-03-15· cited 19×
- Commonwealth v. KaufmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-11-12· cited 18×
- Commonwealth v. HermanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-06-12· cited 18×
- State v. TesterSupreme Court of Vermont· 2009-01-30· cited 17×
- State v. PriceMissouri Court of Appeals· 1987-04-07· cited 13×
- Turner v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 2009-02-19· cited 10×
- State v. ChisolmCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-06-02· cited 6×
- State v. HatcherCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-08-05· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.