OPINION
This is an appeal from a conviction for the sale of heroin. Punishment was assessed by the court at life. 1
The sole contention of the appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to show that the evidenсe admitted was the same or similar to that alleged to have been bought in the indictment. He contends that the chain of custody of the heroin introduced was not established.
Charles Mathis, an undercover officer of the Dallas police department, testified that on the day in question he saw the appellant who he knew only as “Bo” and told him that he wanted “to cop a twenty-five paper $25 paper of jive” which meant he wanted to buy twenty-five dollars worth of heroin. The appellant left in an automobile, returned and sold Mathis “this powder wrapped in foil” for twenty-five dollars. Mathis further testified that he left with the packаge and met Detective Fowler and handed him the package. Fоwler then placed it in a box which was initialed by Fowler and Mathis. He also testified that he did not make any more purchases that day.
Fowler took the box, with the foil inside, sealed it in an evidence envelopе and placed it in a locked evidence box. The foil packet and box were in exactly the same condition as when he received them from Mathis.
Lt. Day opened the locked evidence box, opened the sealed envelope and saw the box and рacket inside. He then delivered the box and foil packet in the sаme condi *833 tion as when he took them out of the locked evidence box.
Louis Anderson, a chemist and firearms examiner, receivеd the envelope with the box and packet inside at the Criminal Investigation Laboratory from Lt. Day. Anderson initialed the envelope and сhecked to see that the box and packet were presеnt and turned the envelope, box and packet over to Dr. Masоn for analysis. The laboratory report, which was introduced into evidence, signed by Dr. Mason reflected that the packet in the evidenсe envelope contained heroin.
Anderson testified that the rеport is the type made in the normal course of business and that he (Anderson) had the care, control, management and supervision of those business records.
The appellant contends that becausе Anderson could not specifically recall receiving the envelope box and foil packet that the chain of custody was nоt shown. According to Anderson and from the number of the report, many thousands of exhibits are submitted to the laboratory. The fact that he did not personally remember handling the exhibits does not prevent them from being admittеd into evidence.
The admissibility of ordinary diagnostic findings customarily based on objective data and not usually presenting more than averagе difficulty of interpretation is generally conceded. McCormick, Evidence, Section 290 (1954), page 612.
Article
3737e,
Vernon’s Ann.Civil Statutes, by its terms authorizes proоf by the testimony of the entrant, custodian or other qualified witness, “even thоugh he may not have personal knowledge as to the various items оr contents of such memorandum or record,” and that “such lack of personal knowledge may be shown to affect the weight and credibility of the memorandum or record but shall not affect its admissibility.” Trujillo v. State,
Dr. Mason was not called as a witness. The report was admissible as a business record under Article 3737e, supra. Clifton v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
No error is shown. The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. At the penalty stage of the trial the appellant testified that he had been convicted of three prior offenses of burglary and for an offense of wilful destruction of property.