State v. Palmer

132                    June 4, 2025              No. 505

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                STATE OF OREGON

                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
              CHARLES WADE PALMER, JR.,
                aka Charles Wade Palmer,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   20CR08712; A181656

  Christopher A. Ramras, Judge.
  Submitted May 15, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Daniel C. Silberman, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
  KAMINS, J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)           133

        KAMINS, J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction
for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.011.
In a single assignment of error, defendant argues that the
trial court erred in admitting the bottom portion of an
Oregon State Police Forensics Service Request form (Form
49) because it did not meet the business records exception
to the hearsay rule. See OEC 803(6) (setting out requirements). Assuming defendant’s argument on appeal is preserved and reviewing for legal error, Arrowood Indemnity
Co. v. Fasching, 

, 

 (2022), we
conclude that any error was harmless and therefore affirm.
         Form 49 is a form requesting that the state police
crime lab test defendant’s blood alcohol content. The officer
testified about the majority of that form, which provided the
case number, the evidence number, the nature of the evidence, as well as information about the defendant and the
charged crime. The bottom portion of the form was signed
by a property technician who did not appear at trial.
         Any error in the admission of the bottom portion of
Form 49 was harmless. Defendant contends that the prosecutor relied on the form in argument, and it “constituted
the state’s sole evidence of an appropriate chain of custody
between the police station and the crime lab.” However, as
the state points out, the prosecutor’s argument relied on the
top portion of the form filled out by the testifying witness.
And the record contains sufficient evidence of the chain of
custody—the officer testified that he personally handled the
evidence and placed it in a locked refrigerator, and the crime
lab witness testified that he received the evidence inside a
box sealed with evidence tape that was dated and initialed
by the testifying officer. Defendant did not present any evidence or argument challenging the link in the chain of custody transmitting the evidence from the station to the crime
lab. Accordingly, any error in admitting the bottom portion
of the form was harmless.
        Affirmed.