Opinion ID: 1763919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the admission into evidence of the shotgun and two handguns

Text: In this particular claim by the defense claiming error in the trial it is contended that the court seriously prejudiced the defendant's position by admitting into evidence a shotgun and two handguns whichit is arguedhad not been sufficiently identified as connected to the charged offense. Here it should be sufficient response to cite the recent case of State v. Lawson, 393 So.2d 1260 (La.1981): To admit demonstrative evidence at trial, the law requires that the object be identified. The identification can be visual, that is, by testimony at the trial that the object exhibited is the one related to the case. It can also be identified by chain of custody, that is, by establishing the custody of the object from the time it was seized to the time it was offered in evidence. For the admission of demonstrative evidence, it suffices if the foundation laid establishes that it is more probable than not that the object is the one connected with the case. Lack of positive identification goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. Ultimately, connexity is a factual matter for determination by the trier of fact. State v. Paster, 373 So.2d 170 (La. 1979); State v. Drew, 360 So.2d 500 (La. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1059 [99 S.Ct. 820, 59 L.Ed.2d 25] (1979). (Emphasis supplied) Furthermore, this issue has in essence been disposed of in the initial issue treated by this opinion wherein the factual and legal support of the probable cause to arrest the defendants and the justification for the seizure of the weapons as evidence were treated at length. There is no merit here to this contention made in behalf of the defendants.