☢ test - Í

But for Davis' actions, the fire would never have started.” Q. CHAIN OF CUSTODY See also subheading SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE – LAB SAMPLES, CHAIN OF CUSTODY, below Note: Chain of custody is unchanged in the 2013 evidence code. See OCGA § 24-9-901 et seq. O’Rourke v. State, 327 Ga.App. 628, 760 S.E.2d 636 (June 19, 2014). Child molestation convictions affirmed; chain of custody for bed sheets admitted into evidence was properly shown. “O'Rourke argues that, because the evidence bag containing the bed sheets at issue was stapled rather than sealed, the State cannot show with reasonable certainty that the evidence has not been tampered with. However, ‘[w]hen 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, 602(1) (734 S.E.2d 438) (2012)]. Here, the testimony offered at trial confirmed that the bed sheets had been packaged separately, that each bag had been securely stapled shut and placed in a larger bag that was properly identified and sealed, that the larger bag remained sealed until it arrived at the GBI, and that the evidence bag at issue had been properly handled thereafter. There was no evidence of tampering or contamination.” Lowe v. State, 295 Ga. 623, 759 S.E.2d 841 (June 16, 2014). Malice murder and firearms convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted “12 exhibits that were identified as either shell casings or projectiles found at the scene of the shooting, or projectiles taken from Milton's body during the autopsy. The identifying witness testified that she collected each item from the crime scene, or was given it during the autopsy by the physician performing the autopsy, she placed each item in a box that she then marked, and that each box at trial bore her markings.” Defendant objected that the boxes were sealed in envelopes bearing someone else’s markings. “What the State must do with evidence such as bullet casings and projectiles is establish ‘with reasonable certainty that the [items] introduced into evidence were the same ones [recovered earlier] and had not been tampered with or replaced.’ Moore v. State, 285 Ga. 157, 158(2), 674 S.E.2d 315 (2009) (Citation and parenthetical omitted.) This the State did.” Wise v. State, 321 Ga.App. 39, 740 S.E.2d 850 (March 28, 2013). Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute affirmed; trial court properly admitted crime lab evidence regarding prior drug conviction without proving chain of custody. “ Here, … the cocaine was not admitted into evidence; instead, the trial allowed the chemist to testify that she had indeed tested a substance related to a pending similar transaction that she determined to be cocaine. The State presented this evidence merely to establish the basis for the charge in the pending similar transaction, rather than Wise's guilt or innocence in the present case. In this circumstance, there was no requirement that the chain of custody account ‘for the safekeeping and transportation of the evidence from seizure to trial.’ Phillips v. Williams, 276 Ga. 691, 692, 583 S.E.2d 4 (2003). Moreover, ‘in a drug possession case, the concept of corpus delicti requires that there be proof by the state that the accused possessed the illegal drug; there is, however, no invariable requirement that the drug itself be produced.’ Chaney v. State, 265 Ga. 415, 421, 349 S.E.2d 717 (1986). Thus, as the testimony was offered as proof of the possession charge in the 2004 case, rather than proof of the cocaine that Wise possessed in the present case, the trial court did not err in allowing the chemist to testify about the substance she tested.” Smith v. State, 285 Ga.App. 658, 647 S.E.2d 346 (June 4, 2007). Rape and related convictions affirmed. State was not required to show chain of custody of videotape. Accord, Rodriguez-Nova v. State , 295 Ga. 868, 763 S.E.2d 698 (September 22, 2014) (“the chain of custody requirement does not apply to audio and video recordings. Gadson v. State, 263 Ga. 626, 627(2) (437 S.E.2d 313) (1993).”). Simmons v. State, 282 Ga. 183, 646 S.E.2d 55 (June 4, 2007). “Simmons argues that numerous items of physical evidence, including a shell casing recovered from the scene of Norby’s murder, Norby’s wallet, Norby’s checkbook, brown gloves worn by Norby’s assailants, a jumpsuit, and a skully cap were improperly admitted without showing a proper chain of custody. Because all of the items about which Simmons complains are non-fungible physical objects easily identifiable by observation, proof of their chain of custody was not required prior to their admission into evidence. Young v. State, 280 Ga. 65(5) (623 S.E.2d 491) (2005). See also Chambers v. State, 224 Ga.App. 245(1) (480 S.E.2d 288) (1997).” Washington v. State 283 Ga.App. 570, 642 S.E.2d 199 (February 13, 2007). No chain of custody necessary where police officer identified the crack pipe as being the one “recovered from Mr. Washington.” “‘[A]s to items of evidence which are distinct and recognizable physical objects, such that they can be identified by the sense of observation, the rule is that such items are admissible in evidence without the necessity for showing a chain of custody. [Cits.]’ Harper v. State, 251