Texas District & County Attorneys Association

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004All my reasoning and a draft of thelegislation were sent to various prosecutorsin my area for comments and suggestions.Then TDCAA’s own legislativewhiz, Shannon Edmonds, reviewed mywork and helped me polish it somemore. Shannonobtained sponsors inthe House and Senateand helped shepherdthe bill through thelegislative process.Jay and Iappeared and testifiedbefore the SenateCriminal Justice committee.Prior to ourtestimony we wereessentially told that wecould agree to a substitutebill allowing anobjection by thedefense, or the legislationwould not bevoted out of committee. Thinking thathalf a loaf was better than none, weagreed. It was voted out of the Senatecommittee and sent to the House ofRepresentatives. The DPS provided thecommittee with its estimate that adoptionof the legislation would save theState over $190,000 annually.After the publicity about theHouston Police Department laboratorycreated an unfavorable climate andalmost derailed the bill, it was back ontrack to be adopted when theDemocrats fled to Oklahoma. On theabsolute last day that legislation couldbe considered, Shannon e-mailed meThe chain-ofcustodyaffidavit wasimportant inrural countieslike mine thatexperience alot of turnoverwith underpaidpeace officerswho goelsewhere forhigher pay.with the good news that it had passedthe House. For all his hard work, myreply e-mail simply said, “Shannon, youda man!”I am presently working with theDPS to combine the lab report, certificateof analysis, andchain-of-custody affidavitinto one documentthat could be sent out ineach case just as the labreport is sent now. Uponreceipt, the prosecutorshould file the affidavitwith the clerk of thecourt and send a copy tothe defendant’s attorneywith notice of filing inanticipation of it beingadmitted without objection.Even when theyagree with the laboratoryanalysis and chain of custody,most defense attorneys are reluctantto stipulate when they are courtappointed.This legislation relieves themof the need to make that decision.I hope that widespread use of theseaffidavits will speed up the backlog ofcases awaiting analysis, eliminate resetsbecause chemists are spread too thin,and make our job easier to perform.Editor’s note: The legislation itself containslanguage for the affidavits. Find electroniccopies of them in Microsoft Word formaton our web site, www.tdcaa.com. Look inthe section titled, “Forms, Briefs, Et Al.”Continued from page 17Evidentiarynotice (cont’d)59 See id.60 See id.61 See supra at 8-10.62 Id.63 See id at 282.64 See Rodgers v. State, 111 S.W.3d 236, 248 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Apolinar, 106S.W.3d at 414; Jounson v. State, 84 S.W.3d 726, 729(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d);Roethel v. State, 80 S.W.3d at 281; Brooks v. State,76S.W.3d 426, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]2002, no pet.); Patton v. State, 25 S.W.3d 387, 394(Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d); see alsoMcQueen v. State, 984 S.W.2d 712, 716 n.2 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1998, no pet.).65 See Roethel, 80 S.W.3d at 282.66 See id. at 281-82; see also Apolinar, 106 S.W.3dat 414.67 See Roethel, 80 S.W.3d at 282; see also Apolinar,106 S.W.3d at 414-15.68 See King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim. App. 1997); see also Rodgers, 111 S.W.3d at248 (analyzing harm from admission of evidence inviolation of §3(g) as to whether the evidence hada substantial and injurious effect on the verdict);Johnson, 84 S.W.3d at 730 (same); Brooks, 76S.W.3d at 426 (same); Waltmon, 76 S.W.3d at 161(same).PAGE 19