☢ test - Í

evidence bags, including McMillan’s, “but she denied ever taking drugs from case files or tampering with any drugs and she specifically denied tampering with either State's Exhibit 21 or 22.” “See Mickens v. State, 318 Ga.App. 601, 602, 734 S.E.2d 438 (2012) (‘When there is only a bare speculation of tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to the weight.’) (footnote omitted).” Mickens v. State, 318 Ga.App. 601, 734 S.E.2d 438 (November 16, 2012). Aggravated assault and rape convictions affirmed; chain of custody for lab sample was properly shown, despite discrepancy as to whether detective’s initials were on package. Detective testified that she placed her initials over the tape sealing the package; GBI biologist confirmed that the package was received properly sealed, but without initials. “Here, the testimony offered at trial confirmed that the swabs had been packaged properly, were properly identified and sealed upon arrival at the GBI, and were properly handled thereafter. The swabs were stored in locked law enforcement facilities, each witness who retrieved them testified as to their condition and labeling, and there was no evidence of tampering or contamination. In light of the record before us, we discern no error in admitting the mouth swabs.” Horne v. State, 318 Ga.App. 484, 733 S.E.2d 487 (October 25, 2012). Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute affirmed; crime lab evidence was properly admitted despite “Horne's contention that the evidence reflected a disparity in the weight of the cocaine that was tested. The officer testified that the cocaine and packaging had a total weight of 20.6 grams. The GBI Crime Lab report reflected that the cocaine weighed approximately 17 grams. The officer and chemist explained that the weight difference was due to the fact that the officer had weighed the cocaine while it was in the package, whereas the chemist had taken the cocaine out of the package to obtain its weight. The trial court was authorized to conclude that the difference in the field weight and the lab weight was not sufficiently material to require the exclusion of the evidence. See Maldonado v. State, 268 Ga.App. 691, 695(1) (603 S.E.2d 58) (2004).” Ross v. State, 313 Ga.App. 695, 722 S.E.2d 411 (January 26, 2012). Convictions for sale of cocaine and related offenses affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure to object to admission of drugs. “Ross argues that trial counsel was deficient in not objecting to the admission of state exhibit five, which was the cocaine allegedly sold by Ross on April 20, 2006, because the envelope containing the cocaine indicated that it had been recovered on April 18, 2006. Ross claims trial counsel should have objected to the admissibility of the exhibit based on this discrepancy in dates, reasoning that the state could not have established that it was the same cocaine that was seized and that there had been no tampering with the evidence. But such a chain of custody argument ‘goes to the weight and credit a factfinder assigns to the evidence, rather than to its admissibility.’ (Citation omitted.) Bush v. State, 305 Ga.App. 617, 619(3) (699 S.E.2d 899) (2010).” Accord, Holland v. State , 329 Ga.App. 103, 763 S.E.2d 894 (September 23, 2014) (blood sample for DUI implied consent test). Clark v. State, 308 Ga.App. 643, 708 S.E.2d 386 (March 23, 2011). Statutory rape and child molestation convictions affirmed. Contrary to defendant’s argument, “‘ DNA evidence may be admitted without demonstrating a chain of custody, since it can be readily identified by reference to the defendant's DNA.’ (Citation omitted.) Kuykendall v. State, 299 Ga.App. 360, 364, 683 S.E.2d 56 (2009).” Hines v. State, 307 Ga.App. 807, 706 S.E.2d 156 (February 11, 2011). Child molestation conviction affirmed; chain of custody of lab sample kit was properly shown. Kit was sent from GBI to private lab in New Orleans, Reliagene, tested, then returned to GBI. “At trial, the kit was shown to have the same identification number and bar code, and it had the initials of the GBI analyst who worked on the case. Thus, the kit itself, as marked, was not fungible and the witness testified to its identification.” Thomas v. State, 306 Ga.App. 672, 702 S.E.2d 788 (October 29, 2010). Cocaine possession and sale convictions affirmed; State adequately proved chain of custody of lab sample between police, GBI crime lab, and private facility where it was ultimately tested . “Contrary to Thomas' argument, the State's evidence showed with reasonable certainty that the evidence examined was the same as the evidence seized. There was no evidence of substitution or tampering. Where the testimony shows that the police placed the substance in a identifiable container and that the crime lab technician who tests the substance received it in the same container with no proof of tampering or substitution, the State has met its burden of showing with reasonable certainty that the substance tested was the same as that seized. Maldonado v. State, 268 Ga.App. 691, 694(1) (603 S.E.2d 58) (2004).” Accord, Neal v. State , 308 Ga.App. 551, 707 S.E.2d 503 (February 22, 2011). Potter v. State, 301 Ga.App. 411, 687 S.E.2d 653 (December 3, 2009). Defendant’s convictions for vehicular homicide