People v. White, 40 N.Y.2d 797 (1976)
A defendant charged with a drug offense is generally entitled to pretrial discovery to conduct independent tests on the alleged contraband, subject to court supervision and safeguards.
Summary
White was convicted of criminal possession of a dangerous drug. Prior to trial, he requested permission to conduct his own tests on the substance, but the motion was denied. At trial, he was limited in his ability to cross-examine the prosecution’s chemist about the reliability of their tests. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the defendant should have been granted the opportunity for independent testing, provided that the defendant can show that the discovery is material to the defense and the request is reasonable. Such testing should be conducted under court supervision with appropriate safeguards.
Facts
Police found contraband in White’s apartment. The New York State Police chemist performed microscopic and chemical tests on the substance.
White moved for a pretrial order allowing him to conduct his own scientific tests on the alleged dangerous drug, which motion was denied without explanation.
During cross-examination of the People’s chemist at trial, White was hampered by his inability to refer to the results of any comparative testing.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted White of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree.
White appealed, arguing that the denial of his pretrial motion for independent testing was erroneous.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, vacated the conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant charged with a dangerous drug offense is entitled to pretrial discovery to conduct independent tests on the alleged dangerous drug.
Holding
Yes, because a defendant’s guilt or innocence may hinge exclusively on the nature and amount of the substance in question, making independent testing essential for refuting the charges.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that defendants in narcotics cases should generally be permitted to have their own experts perform tests on the alleged narcotic. The court noted the prevalence of this practice in federal courts under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as in other state courts. The court stated that the denial of the motion was erroneous because “Defendant’s guilt or innocence hung exclusively on the nature and amount of the substance in question; he advanced no other theory of defense. For refutation of the charge against him there was no acceptable alternative to scientific testing by experts of his choice.”
The court emphasized that the trial court has discretion in granting pretrial discovery under CPL 240.20, subd. 3, but that discretion should normally be exercised in favor of granting the request assuming that the defendant can show that discovery is material to the preparation of his defense and the request is reasonable. If there are concerns about alteration of the substance, the defendant should be afforded the opportunity to conduct testing after the drug has been introduced at trial.
The court specified that “Any pretrial discovery and testing should, of course, be conducted under the supervision of the court and with safeguards, analogous to those observed by the prosecution in its own testing, to protect against contamination or destruction of the evidence. The particular safeguards must necessarily be designed on an ad hoc basis in the light of the nature, form, quantity and other characteristics of the substance in question and with recognition of other material circumstances of the individual case.”
The court also addressed White’s contention that there was a fatal deficiency of proof regarding the chain of custody. The court found that weaknesses in the chain of custody affected the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and did not create reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt.