Opinion ID: 901700
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Squires' chain of custody objection to the bumper cover

Text: [¶10.] Second, Squires claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting photographs of the front bumper cover of Squires' vehicle because the bumper cover had not been properly preserved and because Kurtz had failed to meet the requirements set forth in SDCL 19-17-1 (Rule 901) for authentication. [1] [¶11.] We only reverse a circuit court's ruling regarding authentication if we find an abuse of discretion. We have said, The [circuit] court has great discretion in regard to the competency of chain of custody evidence. State v. Brings Plenty, 490 NW2d 261, 265 (SD 1992) (citation omitted); see also State v. Lownes, 499 NW2d 896, 901 (SD 1993) (citations omitted). In addition, the chain of custody need not be absolutely perfect, but it must `strongly suggest the exact whereabouts of the exhibit at all times.' State v. Serl, 269 NW2d 785, 789 (SD 1978) (quoting Butler v. State, 154 IndApp 361, 289 NE2d 772 (1972)). An advocate for evidence need only demonstrate with reasonable probability that no tampering or substitution has occurred, however it need not negate every possibility of tampering or substitution. Lownes , 499 NW2d at 901 (citations omitted). Mere suspicion or speculation is insufficient to establish a break in the chain of custody. Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, [e]ven if error is found, [ ] `it must be prejudicial in nature before this Court will overturn the [circuit] court's evidentiary ruling.' State v. Williams, 2006 SD 11, ¶8, 710 NW2d 427, 430 (citations omitted). [¶12.] Kurtz traced the chain of custody of the bumper cover through multiple witnesses. Kurtz testified that Squires sold his damaged vehicle to Aamco Transmission shortly after the accident. One of the co-owners of Aamco Transmission, Troy Thompson, testified that Squires brought the vehicle to him for transmission repair around September of 2001 and described the damage to the bumper at that time. Thompson then testified that he sold the car to Nordstrom's Auto Service in the same condition he received it from Squires, except with a working transmission. [¶13.] A co-owner of Nordstrom's Auto Service, Shannon Nordstrom, identified the bumper cover and testified as to its condition. He testified that the bumper cover was structurally the same as when he received it from Thompson. He indicated that exposure to sun and weather while in his possession had caused some deterioration to the cosmetic appearance of the bumper. Nordstrom also testified that he sold the bumper cover to David Rowe, an employee of Kurtz's lawyer. [¶14.] Rowe then testified that he took photographs of the bumper cover when he purchased it from Nordstrom and took the bumper cover to the law office. Later, Thompson visited the law office to examine the bumper cover. He concluded that it was in substantially the same physical and structural condition as it was when [he] saw it [last]. However, he did note that there was a little more paint missing on the edges. [¶15.] The evidence traced the location and condition of the bumper cover from the accident to the time of trial. The bumper cover was sufficiently identified and described to demonstrate with reasonable probability that no tampering or substitution had occurred. Based on this chain-of-custody testimony, the circuit court admitted the photographs of the bumper cover. Even had the photographs of the bumper cover been inadmissible, Kurtz's proof of damages did not turn on its admission. The more pertinent evidence of damage came from the testimony of both Kurtz and Squires, who testified about the condition of Squires' car after the accident and the resulting damage to the bumper. Kurtz testified that the front of Squires' vehicle looked really bad and that there [were] dents. Squires testified that after rear-ending Kurtz his license plate was bent and the bumper cover's paint was chipped. Also, the investigating officer testified that Squires' vehicle had approximately $1,500 in front end damage and that this damage constituted more than just a bent license plate. These testimonies largely corroborate the physical evidence of the structural and surface damage to the vehicle. Therefore, even if Squires had been able to show that the photographs of the bumper cover were inadmissible, he did not show prejudice.