On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Evidence at OWI trial established sufficient chain of custody of blood sample
City of Berlin v. Ricardo A. Adame, 2017AP2130, District 2, 4/18/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There was a sufficient chain of custody evidence to conclude that the blood-alcohol test results offered into evidence by the state related to blood samples taken from Adame.
Evidentiary challenges spurned; ERP/CIP ineligibility upheld
State v. Tiron Justin Grant, 2014AP2965-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court serially takes up and rejects each of Grant’s challenges to his conviction, at trial, of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, as well as the sentencing court’s denial of ERP/SAP and CIP eligibility.
The evidence was sufficient to establish chain of custody of blood drawn from defendant
State v. Jacob A. Martinez, 2015AP272, District 2, 8/5/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible of publication); case activity (including briefs)
Though there were multiple tests of the blood drawn from Martinez after his arrest for OWI—one for ethanol, two for THC (the second necessitated by the invalidity of the results of the first test)—the record and testimony are sufficiently complete “to render it improbable that the original item has been exchanged,
Evidence – Recording – Best Evidence Rule
State v. John D. Harris, 2009AP3140-CR, District 1, 8/17/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harris: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Testimony of an investigator relating the contents of a recording wasn’t inadmissible under the best evidence rule, § 910.02.
¶11 Although the best evidence rule generally requires an original recording to be played in court in order to prove the content of the recording,
Authentication & Identification, § 909.01: Chain of Custody
State v. Walter William McCoy, 2007 WI App 15
For McCoy: Andrea Taylor Cornwall
Issue/Holding:
¶18 … We start by acknowledging that the chain of evidence in this case is not perfect. There are substantial time gaps as pointed out by McCoy. Nonetheless, the chain of custody evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was admissible. The standard for the admission of exhibits into evidence is that there must be a showing that the physical exhibit being offered is in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed.” Moore,