The State has not proven Chain of custody

"The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition

precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter is what its proponent claims." N.J.R.E. 9!. ""
party introducing tangible evidence has the burden of laying a proper
foundation for its admission." #tate v. $runson% !&' N.J. &((% &9&
)!99&*. This foundation should include a showing of an uninterrupted
chain of custody. +bid. )citing #tate v. $rown% 99 N.J. #uper. ''% '(%
)"pp. ,iv.*% certif. denied% -! N.J. ./0 )!9/0**.
The determination of whether the #tate sufficiently established the
chain of custody is within the discretion of the trial court. $rown% supra%
99 N.J. #uper. at '(. 1enerally% evidence will be admitted if the court
finds "in reasonable probability that the evidence has not been changed
in important respects or is in substantially the same condition as when
the crime was committed." +d. at '0 )citations omitted*. "2"3 defect in the
chain of custody goes to the weight% not the admissibility% of the
evidence introduced." #tate v. 4orton% !-- N.J. &0&% ../ )!990*.
"ccording to N.J. 5ractice% 6riminal 5rocedure by 7onorable 8eonard "rnold% J.#.6. )9est
5ublishing*% :olume &'% 6hapter '!% #ection !&.% a party see;ing to introduce an item of
physical evidence must prove that the item was that which was ta;en from a particular
person or place which ma;es the item relevant as evidence in the trial. #uch proof is
provided by testimony identifying the item as having been ta;en from that person or place%
and by evidence tracing custody of the item from the time it was ta;en until it is offered in
evidence. This latter evidence is necessary to avoid any claim of substitution or tampering.
#tate v. Johnson% 9 N.J. #uper. !-% '!/ ".'d &9( )"pp. ,iv. !9/-*% aff<d ./ N.J. '09% '!/
".'d &9' )!9//*.
The required proof includes=
!* testimony by an investigator identifying the item as that which the investigator
discovered and too;>
'* testimony by that investigator that there was no tampering with the item while it was in
his?her custody>
&* testimony regarding delivery of the item to the second person who had custody of the
item>
.* possibly similar testimony by the second and each subsequent person who had
custody of the item until the time of its presentation in court. 9here the item has been
submitted to a laboratory for analysis% proof of the chain of custody should ideally include=
testimony from the person who too; the item )or specimen* to the laboratory> proof of the
method of reception and storage at the laboratory prior to and after analysis> up to the time of
trial. "rnold% N.J. 5ractice% 6riminal 5rocedure% #ec. !&..
The most difficult aspect of the proof specified above is usually the identification of the
evidence by the investigator who discovered it. This difficulty arises because of the frequent
failure to properly "mar;" the item. "4ar;ing" means the placing by the investigator of at least
his?her initials on the item. @nfortunately% sometimes items are "mar;ed" by affiAing an
evidence tag to the item with a string. The investigator then puts his?her initials on the tag.
9hen the string brea;s and the tag is lost it may then be impossible for the investigator to
identify the item as being the item that was discovered. "rnold% N.J. 5ractice% 6riminal
5rocedure% volume &'% #ection !&..
4any eAcellent teAts% one such teAt is the 7andboo; of Borensic #cience% published by the
Bederal $ureau of +nvestigation provide information on the proper "mar;ing" of various types
of evidence% and they should be studied by investigators having responsibility for the
collection of physical evidence. $ut the basic rule is as follows= The item should be "mar;ed"
by the investigator placing his?her initials% date% and the case number on the item itself.
4etallic surfaces should be so "mar;ed" with a machinist<s scribe. 8iquids% soils and small
fragments should be placed in a suitable container and sealed. The container should be
"mar;ed" by scribing the same information on the container% or by using some other
permanent form of mar;ing material on the container. "rnold% N.J. 5ractice% 6riminal
5rocedure% :olume &'% #ection !&..
9ith respect to avoiding a claim of substitution of another item for that seiCed or a claim
that the item has been tampered with% the problems of proof can be minimiCed by designating
one investigator as the custodian of all the physical evidence in a given investigation. "ll
investigators who recover physical evidence must turn that evidence over to the custodian%
who is then responsible for the evidence from that time forward until trial. 9here evidence
must be submitted to a laboratory% the custodian delivers that evidence to the laboratory% and
obtains a receipt from the laboratory. 9hen the laboratory has completed its eAamination% it
is the custodian who returns to the laboratory% receives the remaining specimen ! from the
laboratory% and retains custody of the specimen and brings it to court for trial. $y following
this procedure% all the physical evidence can be introduced by calling the various
investigators who recovered and mar;ed each item of physical evidence% the custodian% and
the laboratory specialist who eAamined the evidence. )The laboratory specialist testifies not
only with respect to the laboratory eAamination% the specialist<s findings and opinion% but also
as to the method of reception and storage at the laboratory prior to and after analysis.*
"rnold% N.J. 5ractice% 6riminal 5rocedure% :olume &'% #ection !&..
The identification of evidence and chain of evidence rules require that the proponent of
the evidence show that the evidence has not been tampered with% and that there has not
been any irregularity which altered its probative value. #tate v. RosC;ows;i% !'9 N.J. #uper.
&!-% &'& ".'d -&! )"pp. ,iv. !9(.*.