Chapter 11 - § 11.4 • TANGIBLE EVIDENCE: CHAIN OF CUSTODY

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 11.4 • TANGIBLE EVIDENCE: CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Colorado

➢ Purpose. "The chain of custody rule requires that the proponent of real evidence establish that the evidence was involved in the incident and that the condition of the evidence at trial is substantially unchanged. The rule helps guarantee the authenticity of evidence tendered at trial." People v. Mascarenas, 666 P.2d 101, 112 (Colo. 1983).

➢ When Proof of Chain of Custody Required. Evidence "must only be connected in some manner with either the perpetrator, the victim, or the crime. Only where no single witness can establish the connection is an unbroken chain of custody of the specific item of evidence necessary in order to demonstrate relevancy." People in Interest of R.G., 630 P.2d 89, 92 (Colo. App. 1981), which stated that "the test for determining the relevancy of real evidence was set out in Washington v. People, 158 Colo. 115, 405 P.2d 735, cert. denied, 383 U.S. 953 (1966)."
➢ When Proof of Chain of Custody Required. It is necessary to establish a chain of evidence only where it is not possible to establish the identity in question by a single witness. Any questions arising as to the connection between the evidence and the defendant go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the exhibit. Reynolds v. People, 471 P.2d 417, 420 (Colo. 1970).

➢ General Rule. "The general rule is that the proponent of real evidence must establish a chain of custody which ensures that the evidence offered is in the same condition as when it was obtained. 'The burden is upon the party offering the evidence to show to the satisfaction of the court, with reasonable certainty, that there was no alteration or tampering with the evidence.'" People v. Sutherland, 683 P.2d 1192, 1197 (Colo. 1984).

➢ Who Determines Chain of Custody. "Whether there is a complete chain of custody of evidence is a question to be determined by the court before it admits the evidence. Once evidence is admitted, any weakness in the chain of custody is a question of weight for the jury." People v. Atencio, 565 P.2d 921, 924 (Colo. 1977).

➢ Blood Sample. "The chain of custody of any blood sample must be established, and any failure to do so may be excused only where circumstances provide reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition of the sample." People v. Sutherland, 683 P.2d 1192, 1197 (Colo. 1984).

➢ Crime Scene Evidence. "Testimony by the investigating officer identifying items seized at the scene of a crime is sufficient basis to support the admission of such items into evidence. [Citations omitted.] Such evidence is admissible even if the officer did not initial or mark the item when it was seized, if at trial the officer identifies the exhibit as appearing to be the same, or to look like, the evidence found at the scene." People v. Beltran, 634 P.2d 1003, 1004 (Colo. App. 1981).

➢ Where Tampering or Alteration Is Alleged. "Even where there is some confusion about the chain of custody, so long as the evidence was accounted for at all times, the evidence is admissible. Confusion may prompt speculation about the possibility of tampering, but where there is only speculation, the evidence may be admitted and the jury may consider the effect of the confusion on the weight to be given to the evidence." People v. Atencio, 565 P.2d 921, 923 (Colo. 1977).
➢ Blood Alcohol Test. "In the absence of any evidence of tampering or lack of authentication, the proponent of evidence relating to the results of a blood-alcohol test and the supporting exhibits is not required to call each witness who may have handled the exhibit." "'When it is only speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let the jury determine its weight.'" People v. Sutherland, 683 P.2d 1192, 1197, 1198 (Colo. 1984).

➢ Need More than Speculation to be Inadmissible. "The

...