Tilghman v. State
In Tilghman v. State, 734 A.2d 160, (Del. 1999), the Court held that the State met its burden to establish chain of custody despite a two-day gap between when cocaine and marijuana seized at the time of arrest were placed in evidence storage and when they were actually logged into the evidence record.
In that case, the arresting officer testified at trial that the evidence was the same evidence that he placed in the evidence locker, and the forensic chemist testified that there was no sign of tampering.
Accordingly, the Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the evidence was either misidentified or adulterated and that the State established chain of custody to a reasonable probability.