chain of custody claim in California

2019In a chain of custody claim, the party offering the evidence bears the burden to show that, “ ‘ “taking all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably certain that there was no alteration.” ’ ” (Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 134 .) However, the reasonable certainty requirement is not met if some “ ‘ “vital link in the chain of possession” ’ ” is lacking.

2008In a chain of custody claim, the proponent of the evidence must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the trial court “ 1 “that, taking all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably certain that there was no alteration.” ’ ” (People v. Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 134 .) The trial court’s ruling on such a claim is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2016Left to such speculation the court must exclude the evidence. [Citations.] Conversely, when it is the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight.” [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 134 .) “ ‘While a perfect chain of custody is desirable, gaps will not result in the exclusion of the evidence, so long as the links offered connect the evidence with the case and raise no serious questions of tampering’ ” (Ibid.) “[I]t is not the case, that anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing th

2001Left to such speculation the court must exclude the evidence. [Citations.] Conversely, when it is the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight.' [Citations.]" ( People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 559, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 , 834 P.2d 1171 ; see also Méndez, Cal. Evidence (1993) § 13.05, p. 237 ["While a perfect chain of custody is desirable, gaps will not result in the exclusion of the evidence, so long as the links offered connect the evidence with the case and raise no serious questions of tampering"].) The t

2001Left to such speculation the court must exclude the evidence. [Citations.] Conversely, when it is the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight.' [Citations.]" ( People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 559, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 , 834 P.2d 1171 ; see also Méndez, Cal. Evidence (1993) § 13.05, p. 237 ["While a perfect chain of custody is desirable, gaps will not result in the exclusion of the evidence, so long as the links offered connect the evidence with the case and raise no serious questions of tampering"].) The t

2001Left to such speculation the court must exclude the evidence. [Citations.] Conversely, when it is the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight.' [Citations.]" ( People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 559, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 , 834 P.2d 1171 ; see also Méndez, Cal. Evidence (1993) § 13.05, p. 237 ["While a perfect chain of custody is desirable, gaps will not result in the exclusion of the evidence, so long as the links offered connect the evidence with the case and raise no serious questions of tampering"].) The t

2001Left to such speculation the court must exclude the evidence. [Citations.] Conversely, when it is the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight.' [Citations.]" ( People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 559, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 , 834 P.2d 1171 ; see also Méndez, Cal. Evidence (1993) § 13.05, p. 237 ["While a perfect chain of custody is desirable, gaps will not result in the exclusion of the evidence, so long as the links offered connect the evidence with the case and raise no serious questions of tampering"].) The t