If the offered evidence possesses characteristics which are
fairly unique and readily identifiable, and if the substance of which the item
is composed is relatively impervious to change, the trial court is viewed as
having broad discretion to admit merely on the basis of testimony that the item
is the one in question and is in substantially unchanged condition. On the
other hand, if the offered evidence is of such a nature as not to be readily
identifiable, or to be susceptible to alteration by tampering or contamination,
sound exercise of the trial court's discretion may require a substantially more elaborate foundation. A foundation of the latter
sort will commonly entail testimonially tracing the
'chain of custody' of the item. Levine v. State, 93
The proponent of a particular tangible item of evidence must
establish its "chain of custody," i.e., must "account
for its handling from the time it was seized until it is offered into evidence.
The circumstances surrounding the safekeeping of the item of evidence during
that time need only be proven as a reasonable
probability; in most instances established by responsible parties who can
negate a possibility of 'tampering' and thus preclude a likelihood that the
thing's condition was changed." Jones v. State, 172
CHAIN OF CUSTODY – NON-CDS EVIDENCE
Brooks v. State, 24 Md.App.
334, 345 (1975) Absolute chain
of custody is not required for non-cds physical evidence.
Amos v. State, 42 Md.App. 365 (1979) - The proponent of "real evidence" must offer a chain of custody that
establishes that the evidence is in substantially the same condition
that it was in at the time of the crime.
The “in substantially
the same condition” requirement is satisfied when the offering party establishes a reasonable probability that no tampering
occurred between the recovery of the item and trial.
Aiken v. State, 101 Md.App. 557, 573 (1994) “physical evidence need not be positively connected with the accused or the crime to be admissible; it is admissible where there is a reasonable probability of its connection with the accused or the crime, the lack of positive identification affects only the weight of the evidence”, quoting Doye v. State, 16 Md.App.511, 519 (1973).
West v. State, 52 Md.App. 624 (1982) Weapon sufficiently authenticated where rape victim testified that it "looked like the gun that the defendant used".