Opinion ID: 1768154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the wood sticks.

Text: Because he was blindfolded when beaten, Jackson could not testify to what weapon was used to inflict the beating. However, he identified two wood window-shade sticks that he had found on the floor of his residence near the location where the beating took place. The sticks matched the size of the welts across his back. The trial judge allowed the sticks to be admitted into evidence. Appellants claim the sticks were not properly authenticated as the weapons used to beat Jackson. Again, Appellants' argument suffers from a mischaracterization. The question of the admissibility of the sticks is one of identificationnot authentication (as in authentication of writings, voices, bodily fluids, etc.)of real or demonstrative evidence (as in evidence presented in tangible form for direct and immediate sensory observation, i.e., a murder weapon). See Lawson, supra, at § 11.00, p. 589. As Professor Lawson states, [i]dentification of tangible evidence, like authentication of documents, is an aspect of relevancy, meaning that it is simply logical to require preliminary proof that a tangible object is linked by time, place, and circumstance to the incident. Id. at 590. Article IX of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence is titled Authentication and Identification, and KRE 901(a), which essentially codifies the old common law identification rule, provides that authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. In Higgins v. Commonwealth, 142 Ky. 647, 134 S.W. 1135 (1911), the state prosecuted the defendant for murder and introduced an iron pipe as a possible murder weapon. However, no proof was offered of when, where, or by whom the pipe had been found. Our predecessor Court held the pipe was inadmissible, but stated evidence could be admitted if: it was found at a time and a place furnishing reasonable ground to connect it in some way with the [incident]. The proof need not positively show the connection; but there must be proof rendering the inference reasonable or probable from its nearness in time and place or other circumstances. 134 S.W. at 1138. See also Grundy v. Commonwealth, Ky., 25 S.W.3d 76, 79-81 (2000) (holding admissible a fist-sized piece of concrete found a few days after supposedly being used in an alleged assault). The wood window-shade sticks were properly admitted. The victim found the sticks at the scene of the crime and they matched the welts on his back. The sticks were linked by time, place and circumstance to the crime. That was sufficient identification to allow their admission into evidence.