Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-21-13 (2026)
Physical Evidence Not Precluded from Jury or Court Because of Break in Chain of Custody.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove the chain of custody of the evidence. Whenever a witness in a criminal trial identifies a physical piece of evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime, the evidence shall be submitted to the jury or court for whatever weight the jury or court may deem proper. The trial court in its charge to the jury shall explain any break in the chain of custody concerning the physical evidence.
(Acts 1995, No. 95-741, p. 1686, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases, 1996–2017 · leading case: Thomas v. State, 824 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).
Thomas v. State, 824 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). “" Our second basis for refusing to find plain error in the record in regard to the chains of custody of the DNA-profiling evidence, is our recognition that, under the narrow facts of this case, we find no impediment to applying § 12-21-13. This statute provides, in part:…”
Wilson v. State, 142 So. 3d 732 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “Code 1975, provides: “ ‘Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove the chain of custody of the evidence.”
Scott v. State, 163 So. 3d 389 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “Code 1975, provides: “ ‘ “Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove the chain of custody of the evidence.”
VanPelt v. State, 74 So. 3d 32 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “Code 1975, provides “ ‘Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove the chain of custody of the evidence. Whenever a witness in a criminal trial identifies a…”
Hale v. State, 848 So. 2d 224 (Ala. 2002). “1996), a case which appears to rely on § 12-21-13, this court ruled that where a witness can specifically identify the evidence, and its condition is not an issue in the case, then the State is not required to establish a complete chain of custody in order for the evidence to be…”
Stanley v. State, 143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Code 1975, provides: “ ‘ “Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove the chain of custody of the evidence.”
Phillips v. State, 65 So. 3d 971 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “2002), the Supreme Court reexamined its holding in Holton after the 1995 codification of § 12-21-13, Ala.Code 1975. The Supreme Court stated: “‘Section 12-21-13, Ala.”
Shaw v. State, 207 So. 3d 79 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). “After the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Holton, however, the Alabama Legislature adopted § 12-21-13, Ala.Code 1975, effective August 7, 1995.”
Lee v. State, 898 So. 2d 790 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “" § 12-21-13, Ala.Code 1975. A. First, the appellant asserts that the State did not establish a chain of custody for the shotgun and the shotgun shells.”
White v. State, 179 So. 3d 170 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). “2002), the Alabama Supreme Court reexamined its holding in Holton after the 1995 codification of § 12-21-13, Ala.Code 1975. The Supreme Court stated: “Section 12-21-13, Ala.”
Demetrius Avery Jackson, Jr. v. State of Alabama., 169 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “Code 1975, provides: “ ‘ “ ‘Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove the chain of custody of the evidence.”
Melson v. State, 775 So. 2d 857 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “Moreover, the tennis shoes were also admissible pursuant to § 12-21-13, Ala.Code 1975. Section 12-21-13 provides: "Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.