Opinion ID: 1889943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: BILL OF EXCEPTIONS 13 and 14: Foundation for Introduction of Demonstrative Evidence.

Text: The State called an Assistant District Attorney to testify as to the chain of custody of State Exhibits 1 through 15. The defendant reserved a bill of exceptions to his testifying in narrative form, rather than by successive interrogation. The testimony of this prosecuting official was purely formal. He merely testified that he had received the exhibits in sealed envelopes before the trial from the Deputy Sheriff, had opened the envelopes, and had offered the exhibits at the trial. A trial judge has wide discretion in conducting a trial. As to the present ruling, we find no abuse of discretion. It was obviously designed to expedite the trial. The defendant reserved Bill of Exceptions No. 14 to the admission in evidence of State Exhibits 1 through 15, on the ground that the foundation was inadequate to connect these exhibits to the case. These exhibits included a revolver, a knife, two wallets, and a plastic bag containing ammunition. Before the admission of an object in evidence, a foundation must be laid showing that it is related to the case. The foundation testimony may consist of visual identification of the object by witnesses or by establishing a continuous chain of custody from the seizure of the object to its introduction in evidence at the trial. For admission, it suffices if the testimony establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is connected with the case. A preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. State v. Coleman, 254 La. 264, 223 So.2d 402 (1969); State v. Martin, 250 La. 705, 198 So.2d 897 (1967); State v. Bertrand, 247 La. 232, 170 So.2d 386 (1965). A lack of positive identification goes to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the evidence. Ultimately, connexity is a matter for the jury. See State v. Dillon, 260 La. 215, 255 So.2d 745 (1971) and the authorities therein cited. The trial judge analyzed the testimony connecting each of the exhibits with the crime. The officers testified that the revolver was found within two feet of the defendant's hand after they finally gunned him down in a running battle. The victim testified that it looked like the weapon drawn on him. The officers testified that the knife was found on the front seat of the vehicle driven by defendant. The victim identified one of the wallets as belonging to the business where he worked. He identified the other wallet as his own. The testimony established that the plastic bag of ammunition was taken out of defendant's pocket when he was captured. As fully explained in the rulings of the trial judge, the testimony was adequate to connect all items with the case for purposes of admissibility. We find no merit in this bill of exceptions.