Opinion ID: 1594360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Admission Of State's Real Evidence.

Text: The trial court admitted several exhibits over objection. [4] Lohnes claims that the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody or show that the objects were substantially in the same condition at trial as at the time the crime was committed. The decision to admit real or tangible evidence over objection is within the sound discretion of the trial court and may only be reversed where there is a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Herman, 253 N.W.2d 454 (S.D.1977). This court has stated: Physical articles which are rationally probative as to issues which are in controversy are admissible in evidence if properly identified and shown to be in substantially the same condition as at the time when the crime was committed.... If it is reasonably probable that the object has not been tampered with it is admissible in evidence. State v. Christmas, 83 S.D. 506, 510, 162 N.W.2d 125, 127 (1968). A more sufficient foundation, such as chain of custody, need only be satisfied where an object is not readily identifiable or is particularly susceptible to alteration. Herman, supra . This real evidence was not particularly susceptible to tampering and was readily identifiable. The record reflects that the foundation requirements were satisfied.