Court Opinion

ID: 9665908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:59:17.940382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:20.380362
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM J. CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
It is not necessary to prove a chain of custody unless the contraband in question is fungible so it can lose its identity if it is commingled with another fungible substance. In this case, the contraband consisted of two sharp weapons. There is direct testimony that the two weapons recovered and introduced in evidence were similar to the weapons the witnesses saw in Ennis’ hands. That is sufficient identification without further proof of chain of custody.
Moreover, as noted in the majority opinion, proof of affirmative links connecting an accused to the contraband is necessary only when the contraband is not found in the accused’s actual, physical possession. Here there is direct evidence that Ennis had the weapons in his hands, so proof of additional affirmative links was unnecessary.
For these additional reasons, I concur in the judgment.