chain of custody analysis in South Carolina

2007However, our supreme court has recently noted that it has “never held the chain of custody rule requires every person associated with the procedure be available to testify or identified personally, depending on the facts of the case.” Cochran , 364 S.C. at 629-30 , 614 S.E.2d at 647 .

2007However, our supreme court has recently noted that it has “never held the chain of custody rule requires every person associated with the procedure be available to testify or identified personally, depending on the facts of the case.” Cochran , 364 S.C. at 629-30 , 614 S.E.2d at 647 .

2025South Carolina courts "have never held the chain of custody rule requires every person associated with the procedure be available to testify or identified personally, depending on the facts of the case." Id. at 93 , 708 S.E.2d at 754 (quoting S.C.

2025While the chain of custody rule is flexible, "[e]vidence is still required as to how the item was obtained and how it was handled to ensure that it is, in fact, what it is purported to be." Id. at 95, 708 S.E.2d at 755 .

2022See Hatcher, 392 S.C. at 94 , 708 S.E.2d at 754 ("Whether the chain of custody has been established as far as practicable clearly depends on the unique factual circumstances of each case." (quoting Cochran, 364 S.C. at 629 n.1, 614 S.E.2d at 646 n.1)); State v. Patterson, 425 S.C. 500, 508 , 823 S.E.2d 217, 222 (Ct. App. 2019) ("Minor discrepancies in the chain of custody implicates the credibility of the evidence, but does not render the evidence inadmissible.").

2022See Hatcher, 392 S.C. at 94 , 708 S.E.2d at 754 ("Whether the chain of custody has been established as far as practicable clearly depends on the unique factual circumstances of each case." (quoting Cochran, 364 S.C. at 629 n.1, 614 S.E.2d at 646 n.1)); State v. Patterson, 425 S.C. 500, 508 , 823 S.E.2d 217, 222 (Ct. App. 2019) ("Minor discrepancies in the chain of custody implicates the credibility of the evidence, but does not render the evidence inadmissible.").

2014In contrast, “[wjhile the chain of custody requirement is strict where fungible evidence is involved, where the issue is the admissibility of non-fungible evidence — that is, evidence that is unique and identifiable — the establishment of a strict chain of custody is not required.” State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005).

2014In contrast, “[wjhile the chain of custody requirement is strict where fungible evidence is involved, where the issue is the admissibility of non-fungible evidence — that is, evidence that is unique and identifiable — the establishment of a strict chain of custody is not required.” State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005).

2018Code Ann. § 16-3-29 (2015)); id. ("[A]s long as the State has shown the specific intent to kill or commit a murder, the identity of the victim is irrelevant."); id. at 122 ("[C]harging the doctrine of transferred intent is proper to convict a defendant of attempted murder regardless of whether a victim, intended or unintended, suffers an injury."); see also State v. Fennell, 340 S.C. 266, 272 , 531 S.E.2d 512, 515 (2000) ("Although the defendant did not act with malice 1 In his appellant's brief, Green frames the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial as a

2018Code Ann. § 16-3-29 (2015)); id. ("[A]s long as the State has shown the specific intent to kill or commit a murder, the identity of the victim is irrelevant."); id. at 122 ("[C]harging the doctrine of transferred intent is proper to convict a defendant of attempted murder regardless of whether a victim, intended or unintended, suffers an injury."); see also State v. Fennell, 340 S.C. 266, 272 , 531 S.E.2d 512, 515 (2000) ("Although the defendant did not act with malice 1 In his appellant's brief, Green frames the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial as a

2009Sligh v. Johnson , 288 S.C. 364, 367 , 342 S.E.2d 620, 622 (Ct. App. 1986) (finding any error in the admission of evidence through a defective chain of custody is harmless when it is merely cumulative to other evidence properly admitted).

2009Sligh v. Johnson , 288 S.C. 364, 367 , 342 S.E.2d 620, 622 (Ct. App. 1986) (finding any error in the admission of evidence through a defective chain of custody is harmless when it is merely cumulative to other evidence properly admitted).

2008See State v. Freiburger , 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding the chain of custody requirement is strict where fungible evidence is involved); State v. Rice , 375 S.C. 302, 314 , 652 S.E.2d 409, 415 (Ct. App. 2007) (“The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).

2008See State v. Freiburger , 366 S.C. 125, 134 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (holding the chain of custody requirement is strict where fungible evidence is involved); State v. Rice , 375 S.C. 302, 314 , 652 S.E.2d 409, 415 (Ct. App. 2007) (“The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.”).

2005State v. Glenn, 328 S.C. 300, 305-306 , 492 S.E.2d 393, 395 (Ct.App.1997).

2005State v. Glenn, 328 S.C. 300, 305-306 , 492 S.E.2d 393, 395 (Ct.App.1997).