Investigations and Evidence Flashcards

An officer properly seizes a firearm at a crime scene. To ensure the firearm's admissibility in court and to protect its integrity, which of the following is the most critical and required process?

Answer: Establishing and meticulously documenting a complete chain of custody.

The chain of custody is the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical evidence. A complete and unbroken chain of custody is required to prove to the court that the evidence presented is the same as what was seized and that it has not been tampered with, substituted, or contaminated.

Which of the following best describes the fundamental difference between a law enforcement interview and an interrogation?

Answer: An interview is a non-accusatory conversation to gather information, whereas an interrogation is accusatory and designed to elicit an incriminating response.

The primary distinction lies in the purpose and tone. An interview is a fact-finding process that is typically non-accusatory and conversational, used with victims, witnesses, and sometimes suspects. An interrogation is an accusatory process intended to persuade a suspect to tell the truth and often involves confrontational or psychological tactics to obtain a confession or admission of guilt.

An investigator finds a suspect's fingerprint on a glass at a burglary scene. The fingerprint does not, by itself, prove the suspect committed the burglary, but it does establish the suspect was at the location. This fingerprint is best classified as what type of evidence?

Answer: Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. The fingerprint directly proves the person was present, but it requires the jury to infer that because they were present, they committed the crime. Direct evidence, such as an eyewitness seeing the suspect commit the act, would prove the fact without needing an inference.

During an investigation into an armed robbery, a detective receives a credible tip that a different individual, not the current suspect, committed the crime. Under the principles established in *Brady v. Maryland*, what is the detective's responsibility with this information?

Answer: To document the information and ensure it is disclosed to the prosecution, who must then provide it to the defense.

The Supreme Court case *Brady v. Maryland* established that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is any information favorable to the accused that may suggest innocence or reduce punishment. Information pointing to another perpetrator is clearly exculpatory and must be disclosed.

An officer responding to a 'shots fired' call finds a victim who has been shot. The victim is in extreme distress and screaming. Just as the officer approaches, the victim shouts, "Mike Jones did this to me!" before falling unconscious. In court, the officer's testimony about this statement would most likely be admissible under which hearsay exception?

Answer: Excited Utterance

An excited utterance is a statement relating to a startling event, made while the declarant was under the stress or excitement caused by that event. The victim's statement, made immediately after the startling event of being shot and while still under the stress of the incident, fits this exception perfectly. While it might also qualify as a dying declaration if the victim dies, 'excited utterance' is the most fitting description based on the immediate circumstances.

Under North Carolina's Eyewitness Identification Reform Act (G.S. 15A-284.52), which of the following is a required instruction that must be given to an eyewitness before a photo or live lineup?

Answer: That the person who committed the crime may or may not be present in the lineup.

North Carolina General Statute 15A-284.52 explicitly requires that the lineup administrator instruct the eyewitness that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup. This is a key reform designed to reduce the pressure on a witness to choose someone, thereby decreasing the risk of misidentification.