531 So. 2d 938 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1988
This cause was reversed and remanded by this court with an opinion authored by a supernumerary judge. Kennard v. State,
The first issue raised by the appellant has been resolved and thoroughly discussed by the Alabama Supreme Court. See Kennardv. State, supra. The other issues raised by the appellant will be discussed herein.
Sommer v. State,"The establishment of a chain of custody is needed to show a reasonable possibility that evidence has not been tampered with or altered. Smith v. State,
446 So.2d 68 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984); Tate v. State,435 So.2d 190 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). However, it is not necessary to prove to an absolute certainty, but only to a reasonable probability, that the object is the same as, and not substantially different from, the object at the commencement of the chain. Slaughter v. State,411 So.2d 819 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), cert. denied,411 So.2d 819 (Ala. 1982). See also, Mauldin v. State,402 So.2d 1106 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981); Sexton v. State,346 So.2d 1177 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied,346 So.2d 1180 (Ala. 1977). Moreover, where a weak link in the chain of custody is said to exist, it presents a question of the credit and weight to be afforded the evidence rather than the admissibility of the item. Williams v. State,375 So.2d 1257 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied,375 So.2d 1271 (Ala. 1979)."
Any of the "tentative" statements made by the witnesses identifying the items of evidence should go to credibility rather than admissibility. Beavers v. State, supra, at 616;Lott v. State,
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur.