Opinion ID: 1834950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: did the trial court err in admitting the counter top into evidence?

Text: The argument here is that the murder occurred on November 20, 1986, and the counter top from which Wilson's fingerprints were lifted, remained in use at the wig shop until it was seized by Jackson police on January 21, 1988. Wilson argues that the state has failed to establish chain of custody. In Evans v. State, 499 So.2d 781, 783 (Miss. 1986), we said: Physical objects which are relevant and for which the chain of custody is not broken or which are otherwise identified with certainty are admissible in evidence. Fondren, Miss.Crim.Trial Prac. § 20-38 (1980). Matters regarding the chain of custody of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court, and absent an abuse of discretion, this Court will not reverse. Morris v. State, 436 So.2d 1381, 1388 (Miss. 1983). Should a chain of custody objection arise, the trial court should inquire whether there is any indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with or substitution of the evidence. Doby v. State, 532 So.2d 584, 588 (Miss. 1988); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 312 (Miss. 1984). At trial here the testimony reveals that the counter top was identified with certainty and that there was no indication or reasonable inference that it had been tampered with or substituted. Dino testified that the counter top had not been damaged or altered in any way between the time of the murder and when the officers came to retrieve it. There is no merit to this assignment of error.