0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
21 tayangan3 halaman
"Party introducing tangible evidence has the burden of laying a proper foundation for its admission" #state v. $runson%!&' N.J. &((% &9& )!99&. Foundation should include a showing of an uninterrupted chain of custody.
"Party introducing tangible evidence has the burden of laying a proper foundation for its admission" #state v. $runson%!&' N.J. &((% &9& )!99&. Foundation should include a showing of an uninterrupted chain of custody.
"Party introducing tangible evidence has the burden of laying a proper foundation for its admission" #state v. $runson%!&' N.J. &((% &9& )!99&. Foundation should include a showing of an uninterrupted 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(.*.