Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
10. The objection should be
A defendant was charged with possession of cocaine. At the defendant's trial, the prosecution established that, when approached by police on a suburban residential street corner, the defendant dropped a plastic bag and ran, and that when the police returned to the corner a few minutes later after catching the defendant, they found a plastic bag containing white powder. The defendant objects to introduction of this bag (the contents of which would later be established to be cocaine), citing lack of adequate identification.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
An object of real evidence must first be identified as being what the proponent claims it to be. Real evidence is commonly authenticated by recognition testimony or by establishing a chain of custody. If the evidence is of a type that is likely to be confused or can be easily tampered with, the proponent of the object must present evidence of chain of custody. The proponent of the evidence must show that the object has been held in a substantially unbroken chain of possession. The proponent need not negate all possibilities of substitution or tampering, but must show adherence to some system of identification and custody.
A is correct. By establishing that the defendant dropped a plastic bag as the police were approaching, and that, after only a few minutes, the police officers returned to the same spot and found a plastic bag, the prosecution has introduced sufficient evidence for a finding that the bag was the one the defendant dropped. The objection should be overruled.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the objection should be overruled, it is not because the chain of custody should have been challenged. When evidence is of a type that could easily be tampered with, there must be a valid chain of custody. However, the proponent is not required to negate all opportunities of possible substitution or tampering, but rather, can show adherence to some system of identification and custody. Here, the police were present when the defendant dropped the bag, which means they identified it. Then they returned just a few minutes later and saw a bag in that same location where it had been dropped. There is no indication that someone had the opportunity to tamper with it, or that it appeared any different than when the police initially identified it.
C is incorrect. Although the defendant did not have possession of the bag at the time he was caught, the police identified him with the bag just prior to his fleeing. There is sufficient evidence to link the bag to the defendant and to provide sufficient identification and authenticity.
D is incorrect. The judge does not have to make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the bag was the one dropped by the defendant; the judge need only find that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the plastic bag in question was the one the defendant was holding.