Initial Research, Thesis, and Case Brief - Essay Example

Id.; Gallegos v. State, 776 S.W.2d 312, 316 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.). 2. In the absence of any evidence of tampering, an objection that the State has failed to establish the proper chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Bird v. State, 692 S.W.2d 65, 70 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1031 (1986); Dart v. State, 798 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1990, pet. refd). 3. In Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Tex.App.

--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no pet.), the court held that proof of the beginning and end of the chain of custody will support the admission of narcotics into evidence. The court said that any gaps between the beginning and end of the chain go to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the evidence. Id. The fact some person, other than the testifying chemist, handles the narcotics, affects only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Id. Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver before the 179th District Court, Harris County, I.D. McMaster, J.

, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Robertson, J., held inter alia that: trial court did not err in admitting into evidence packet of cocaine found in the defendants pocket. In his third ground of error appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the packet containing 2.5 grams of cocaine because of a break in the chain of custody of the exhibit following its removal from his coat pocket. As a basis for his contention he points to the fact that the officer who actually recovered the exhibit did not positively identify it.

Prior to executing the warrant the officers agreed among themselves to have Officer Cargill, one of their number, responsible for maintaining control of evidence. Officer Clarke testified he removed the cocaine from appellants pocket and that the exhibit shown to him